Clamping down on Used Games & (PA) Kevin Returns FoShizzle!

[Espy]

I had a different reaction to the "fightin' words" of THQ's Cory Ledesma than most. I have a different reaction to lots of things, probably. But this in particular.
The idea that THQ is somehow "disrespecting customers" with this kind of rhetoric misunderstands the situation as completely as it is possible to do so.

In a literal way, when you purchase a game used, you are not a customer of theirs. If I am purchasing games in order to reward their creators, and to ensure that more of these ingenious contraptions are produced, I honestly can't figure out how buying a used game was any better than piracy. From the the perspective of a developer, they are almost certainly synonymous.

It's exceedingly rare that I purchase a game from Gamestop these days. I got tired of being harangued for trying to buy products there, or being told that they didn't have a product when they did, or going across the street to Best Buy or Target or Fred Meyer and finding fifty copies of the game I was trying to buy heaped up like some heathen altar to commerce. There's more, besides. At some point in the last few years, I became incredibly uncomfortable with the used games market.
I don't think Online Codes that gate access to multiplayer are a particularly good idea, just watching the kinds of threads it generates - but that's exactly what Xbox Live does, for every game on the platform. Sony's considering codes as well, but they're getting it coming and going: they've committed themselves to a dedicated server infrastructure for first party titles, and multiplayer is "free," so a used copy of a Resistance or an Uncharted 2 is a worst case scenario. I prefer an approach along the lines of the Flashback Pack for the second Gears of War - something fun and extra, that feels like a reward. More treat than trick.

I traded in games for a long time, there's probably comics somewhere in the archive about it - you can imagine how quickly my cohort and I consume these things. It was sort of like Free Money, and we should have understood from the outset that no such thing exists. You meet one person who creates games for a living, just one, and it becomes very difficult to maintain this virtuous fiction.
(CW)TB
happy and wholesome again

And KEVIN!

Here (News: Pre-owned 'cheats developers' - THQ - ComputerAndVideoGames.com ) is the article where THQ says:

Smackdown vs. Raw 2011's one-time code for online play might upset pre-owned buyers - but THQ 'doesn't care'.

That's according to the publisher's creative director for wrestling games Cory Ledesma, who told CVG that "loyal fans" who are interested in buying the game first-hand are more important:

"I don't think we really care whether used game buyers are upset because new game buyers get everything. So if used game buyers are upset they don't get the online feature set I don't really have much sympathy for them."

"That's a little blunt but we hope it doesn't disappoint people. We hope people understand that when the game's bought used we get cheated," he continued.

Thoughts? Nerd Rage? Agreement?
Honestly, I buy 50/50 right now when I do buy games, but after reading some of this it's made me pretty seriously re-consider buying used games... although how far do we carry this? Should we not buy used textbooks or from Amazon.com unless it's from a valid distributor?
What do you guys think?

 

[Chazwozel]

I'm pretty sure THQ's argument is complete bullshit.

 

[Frank]

PC games have been the same way for decades, console gamers are getting bent out of shape for the same shit PC gamers have been putting up with forever.

 

[Espy]

I'm pretty sure THQ's argument is complete bullshit.

How so? It seems rather simple. You buy the game from their distributor they get money for their work, you buy it from gamestop then gamestop gets the money instead. What am I missing?

 

[Covar]

I don't expect to get this years mlb roster on my copy of mlb 2k9. Don't see why developers should either.

Ledesma had it exactly right. Why should THQ care about supporting people who don't buy their product?

 

[General Specific]

Why should I continue buying this year's version of that wrestling game or Madden when I have last year's still sitting here and I'm not able to get any kind of trade for it? Do they really think that people would continue to buy next year's game if they could not get rid of their current one? I know I wouldn't. I would have that visual reminder that a new game comes out every year with only a few minor tweaks each time. I'd lose interest in upgrading every year quite quickly.

Also, the people who are buying it used are likely people who would not have bought it new anyway, so in the long run, they've likely not lost a whole lot of revenue. In fact, they may be growing their audience by having people play an older version of their game, liking it and then buying the next version of the game when it's new.

 

[Bubble181]

PC games have been the same way for decades, console gamers are getting bent out of shape for the same shit PC gamers have been putting up with forever.

Yup yup.

Sure the argument is bullshit....IF you believe you actually buy the game. If you follow the premise of the makers, namely, that you only buy a license to use code, it makes sense. You can't give away your digitally bought game. Why should it - from their point of view - be any different for a disc-bought game?
Heck - this same thing is coming to more and more media. Read the EULAs and copyright notices on DVDs and Blurays some time - they pretty much state that you're not allowed to lend or give away your disc, to anyone, ever. Yes, if you buy a DVD for your mother, and borrow it to watch it at home, you're breaking their contract. Just wait what happens with eReaders - they're already selling only-readable-X-times books. And so on.

 

[Covar]

Do they really think that people would continue to buy next year's game if they could not get rid of their current one?

Yes, and people do. The fact that sports games sell well every single year is exactly why your argument holds no water. I also find it amusing that it's the same defense used for piracy.

 

[GasBandit]

If the video games industry wants to be taken as seriously as the movies, books and music industries, they're going to have to get over their hatred of used game sales. This guy just wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Tycho is also wrong about used game sales being tantamount to piracy. Is buying a used car tantamount to grand theft auto? When you buy a used Dodge from a private owner, none of that money goes to the manufacturer either. Just think of the cavalcade of theft that must be Craigslist.

 

[Tinwhistler]

I don't expect to get this years mlb roster on my copy of mlb 2k9. Don't see why developers should either.

Ledesma had it exactly right. Why should THQ care about supporting people who don't buy their product?

When my Craftsman wrench breaks, I can take it back to Sears for a full replacement--regardless of whether I bought it from Sears or a garage sale. Sears has already made their money on that particular wrench. Does it make sense for Sears to require every person who wants a wrench to buy one new? Should you somehow be penalized for buying that same wrench at a garage sale, pawn shop, or from your buddy who no longer needs it because he's retiring from the auto tech industry?

When I buy a used game, the original owner is no longer playing it.If you want to monetize online play, charge a monthly fee...don't penalize someone who has legally purchased the game, albeit used.

 

[Espy]

From Gabes Twitterfeed: "not saying you can't buy used stuff. just when you buy a used game you are not supporting developers. If that matters to you is your choice."

@Gas, he didn't say it is tantamount to piracy. He said it's just no better, but not that they were the same, merely he implies the effect is equal. You raise the same point I did though in my OP, does this mean that we shouldn't buy anything used?

@General, I totally disagree that people won't buy the new games and I don't see how because you bought 1 game and a sequel comes out it automatically means the old one is not worth playing or somehow invalid...

 

[SpecialKO]

THQ's argument about used games at large doesn't really work, because it assumes that every used game sale is a a sale they lose at that point in time. This is only true if THQ is willing to lower their prices to meet the demands of the used market, i.e. to increase the game's net value by making the features-to-price ratio weight towards the features side.

If a consumer, for whatever reason, doesn't consider $50 a game to be a worthwhile price to get the game features at that point in time and the publisher is unwilling to lower the price sufficiently, it's already a lost sale long before that consumer buys that game for $30 used 2 months later.

Now, if THQ doesn't want to cater to the used market and isn't interested in taking steps towards sustaining a community of online players for a particular game, that's their right. For all we know, they've run their own numbers and don't think that a built-in game community for a WWE game is a worthwhile investment because the abandon rate when the next game comes out is so high.

Taking the time to specifically stymie the development of said community is counter-productive though. They should really be looking at the used game market as an opportunity to develop new first-time buyers. As difficult as it can be to price, then re-price your products to keep the revenue coming, taking steps to deter potential customers when you're a common consumer brand is always a bad move.

---------- Post added at 01:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:29 PM ----------

Also, when you buy new, assuming we're talking retail boxes, you're not "supporting the developers". They've been paid by the publishers for their work already, and the publishers have been paid by the distributors, like Amazon, Target, Walmart, etc., with various buyback assurances for a particular percentage of leftover stock.

Digital download is a little different, because sales are "just in time production", and you're often buying directly from the developer/publisher, who have yet to be paid for that copy, and "used" doesn't really exist unless you're able to transfer an authentification code to someone else.

 

[Covar]

If the video games industry wants to be taken as seriously as the movies, books and music industries, they're going to have to get over their hatred of used game sales. This guy just wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Tycho is also wrong about used game sales being tantamount to piracy. Is buying a used car tantamount to grand theft auto? When you buy a used Dodge from a private owner, none of that money goes to the manufacturer either. Just think of the cavalcade of theft that must be Craigslist.

Yes but Gas, if you buy a used Dodge from a private owner should you get upset when the Dodge dealership won't give you free repairs and maintenance that come with the purchase of a new Dodge? You purchase said Dodge as is. If the warranty is up on it you just have to deal. Dodge has no reason to give you service just because you drive a Dodge.

 

[AshburnerX]

If the video games industry wants to be taken as seriously as the movies, books and music industries, they're going to have to get over their hatred of used game sales. This guy just wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Tycho is also wrong about used game sales being tantamount to piracy. Is buying a used car tantamount to grand theft auto? When you buy a used Dodge from a private owner, none of that money goes to the manufacturer either. Just think of the cavalcade of theft that must be Craigslist.

This is basically my argument as well.

 

[checkeredhat]

If the video games industry wants to be taken as seriously as the movies, books and music industries, they're going to have to get over their hatred of used game sales. This guy just wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Tycho is also wrong about used game sales being tantamount to piracy. Is buying a used car tantamount to grand theft auto? When you buy a used Dodge from a private owner, none of that money goes to the manufacturer either. Just think of the cavalcade of theft that must be Craigslist.

But when you buy a used Car from a private owner and not from a dealership, you don't get the warranty coverage and customization benefits that the dealer would offer. This isn't THAT dissimilar.

Plus, the parts in a Chysler automobile are made by various Chrylser owned companies. The sales made from a dealer go directly to Chrysler. But the sale of a videogame developed by Bethesda, could stil be split say, Obsidian and Sony as well. So they're geting a smaller slice of the pie even as is.

I think. Admittedly I don't know how the business model works, I'm just guessing.

I still think online play should come with the game regardless. So they're messing up there, and yeah, they're ripping off gamers (Not technically their customers, but gamers). To use your analogy, its like if used cars had to be sold without passenger seats.

But yeah, I think it is well within their right to limit the experience of the used game buyer by say, giving free DLC to new game buyers but forcing the used gamers to pay for it, or giving the new game buyers bonus add ons that the used gamers don't get.

I have only ever purchased a handful of my games new, I always buy used, and even I agree with it... to some extent.

 

[Espy]

If the video games industry wants to be taken as seriously as the movies, books and music industries, they're going to have to get over their hatred of used game sales. This guy just wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Tycho is also wrong about used game sales being tantamount to piracy. Is buying a used car tantamount to grand theft auto? When you buy a used Dodge from a private owner, none of that money goes to the manufacturer either. Just think of the cavalcade of theft that must be Craigslist.

This is basically my argument as well.[/QUOTE]

Why should they "get over it"? They want to be compensated for the product they create, why are people acting like thats a bad thing?

 

[Tinwhistler]

If the video games industry wants to be taken as seriously as the movies, books and music industries, they're going to have to get over their hatred of used game sales. This guy just wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Tycho is also wrong about used game sales being tantamount to piracy. Is buying a used car tantamount to grand theft auto? When you buy a used Dodge from a private owner, none of that money goes to the manufacturer either. Just think of the cavalcade of theft that must be Craigslist.

Yes but Gas, if you buy a used Dodge from a private owner should you get upset when the Dodge dealership won't give you free repairs and maintenance that come with the purchase of a new Dodge? You purchase said Dodge as is. If the warranty is up on it you just have to deal. Dodge has no reason to give you service just because you drive a Dodge.[/QUOTE]

The analogy fails.
Buick | Auto Warranty Information for Current Buick Owners "The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Pontiac | Auto Warranty Information for Current Pontiac Owners | Pontiac Phase Out " The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Chevy Warranty Information | Owners | Chevrolet "The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Cadillac Warranty | Cadillac Auto Warranty Information | Cadillac "The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Mitsubishi Motors - Warranties At Mitsubishi, we are so confident in the quality, reliability and durability of the cars we build that we back our passenger cars and sport utility vehicles with very extensive warranties. This list is headed ... a 5-year/60,000 mile fully transferable bumper-to-bumper New Vehicle Limited Warranty"
etc
etc
and specifically Dodge:
Dodge Warranty "The Dodge bumper-to-bumper warranty is transferable to any new owners during the warranty time period. There is no charge to transfer the warranty."

hoist, petard, and all that.

 

[GasBandit]

Why should they "get over it"? They want to be compensated for the product they create, why are people acting like thats a bad thing?

They WERE compensated. When it was sold new.

As for the car warranty, a lot of them are actually transferrable.

Edit: Tinwhistler ninjas me for the win.

 

[checkeredhat]

Whoa. I did not know that. I guess people just usually don't sell their car while its still under warranty.

 

[SpecialKO]

Why should they "get over it"? They want to be compensated for the product they create, why are people acting like thats a bad thing?

It's not. What they need to get over is this idea that their product has a fixed perpetual worth to the outside consumer as opposed to a price calculation against value-oriented heterogeneous marketplace that tends to move on to the newest thing.

 

[ScytheRexx]

When it comes to warranty transference, that is at the discretion of the company. While most auto-makers will transfer a warranty to a new owner, some companies, like my camera equipment company, will not transfer warranty for sales outside our authorized dealers.

There is nothing wrong with THQ limiting something for gamers that buy used, because even if others give full features to second hand sales, they do so as a courtesy, not a right.

 

[Covar]

If the video games industry wants to be taken as seriously as the movies, books and music industries, they're going to have to get over their hatred of used game sales. This guy just wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Tycho is also wrong about used game sales being tantamount to piracy. Is buying a used car tantamount to grand theft auto? When you buy a used Dodge from a private owner, none of that money goes to the manufacturer either. Just think of the cavalcade of theft that must be Craigslist.

Yes but Gas, if you buy a used Dodge from a private owner should you get upset when the Dodge dealership won't give you free repairs and maintenance that come with the purchase of a new Dodge? You purchase said Dodge as is. If the warranty is up on it you just have to deal. Dodge has no reason to give you service just because you drive a Dodge.[/QUOTE]

The analogy fails.
Buick | Auto Warranty Information for Current Buick Owners "The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Pontiac | Auto Warranty Information for Current Pontiac Owners | Pontiac Phase Out " The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Chevy Warranty Information | Owners | Chevrolet "The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Cadillac Warranty | Cadillac Auto Warranty Information | Cadillac "The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Mitsubishi Motors - Warranties At Mitsubishi, we are so confident in the quality, reliability and durability of the cars we build that we back our passenger cars and sport utility vehicles with very extensive warranties. This list is headed ... a 5-year/60,000 mile fully transferable bumper-to-bumper New Vehicle Limited Warranty"
etc
etc
and specifically Dodge:
Dodge Warranty "The Dodge bumper-to-bumper warranty is transferable to any new owners during the warranty time period. There is no charge to transfer the warranty."

hoist, petard, and all that.[/QUOTE]

my point exactly. If I went out and bought a used copy of MLB 2010 the Show today I would get the exact same online play, roster updates and DLC as the previous owner. If I went out and bought it next February I would not get up to the day roster updates or patches.

 

[Espy]

Why should they "get over it"? They want to be compensated for the product they create, why are people acting like thats a bad thing?

They WERE compensated. When it was sold new.
[/QUOTE]
You are making the rather giant assumption that a consumer would not buy it new though. While there may be a portion who wouldn't there will be a portion that will. I don't think it's as cut and dry as you would like it to be.

@Special KO: Thats a really good point and maybe the real argument should be the actual pricing of a non-used game. I would buy twice as many games brand new if the cost wasn't over 50 dollars a pop.

---------- Post added at 01:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 PM ----------

For the record, I don't think people who buy used games (me being one of them) are "bad" people or the equivalent of pirates, but still get the analogy that to the game maker it's a similar effect.

In the end it's coming down to this for each person: Do you want to support the company whose product you enjoy? If you don't care, don't buy it new. They won't get the profits from your purchase. If it actually matters to you then you should buy it new.

 

[GasBandit]

I'd feel a lot more generous about "supporting" the poor struggling multibillion dollar game publishers if the price point of video games wasn't so ridiculous and obviously bloated.

 

[SpecialKO]

If it actually matters to you then you should buy it new.

Actually, in this day and age, you should buy it from the developers as directly as possible (if they allow it) if you care about that. They get a bigger cut that way because you're cutting the middle-men distributors out.

 

[Tinwhistler]

my point exactly. If I went out and bought a used copy of MLB 2010 the Show today I would get the exact same online play, roster updates and DLC as the previous owner. If I went out and bought it next February I would not get up to the day roster updates or patches.

No. Not your point 'exactly'. You are highlighting the "during the warranty period" phrase as if it proves that secondhand owners in your analogy have some kind of expiration date that new owners don't have. And this is a fallacy. The same warranty period applies to both new owners and secondhand owners of cars.

So, for your failed and mangled analogy to hold, everyone would have to lose their online play and updates next February. Just like car warranties expire on the same date for new and secondhand owners.

So, looking at it, it doesn't support your point at all. Wanna try to take another stab at it?

 

[Espy]

Either way, you should buy it in a way that supports the developers if you want them to make more games.

@Gas, While you echo my point about the discussion probably needing to actually be about game pricing points, I'm surprised that you take a stance that they have made too much money for you to care. It's okay for "rich" people to get screwed then?

 

[strawman]

The ONLY point Tycho is making is that if your intent, when yo buy a game, is to support the people making the game, then you have to buy it new. Any other type of sale will NOT support the people making the game.

That's it.

He's not claiming that used==piracy. He mentioned off-hand that used games support the creators as much as piracy does (ie, not at all) but he in no way equates the two.

What his (and apparently many others here) argument completely misses is WHO they are supporting.

They are supporting the stockholders of these game creation and distribution corporations.

The people who actually worked on the game and gave them the awesome experience that it is are getting the crumbs that fall off the stockholder's table. The way that game creation and distribution goes, though, the people who actually act as creators get little to nothing, and benefit very little from the purchase. Given how many layoffs have occurred, do occur, and will occur in the game industry (it's part of the stockholder's game to "control costs") they don't even get the benefit of keeping their job - they only get a job if there's a next project and they are willing to work 16 hour days leading up to every deadline.

So, Tycho, you are swallowing his load hook, line, and sinker.

And the reason you are doing this is because you are also in the business of content creation.

However, the way you run your business, and the benefit you derive from it are completely different than the way the people who actually created the games you enjoy benefit from them.

Moving on to reason number two why this is completely and utterly redonkulous:

The market is the market. They price their games high at a price point that will maximize their return on investment. There is a huge underserved market at lower price points that they attempt to fill over time by lowering the cost of the game, but they don't really meet the needs of consumers at that level.

They don't want customers who aren't willing to pony up the full amount to have their work.

So the market is filling in for that need through used game stores. Not only does it give others the chance to play a game, but it generates additional sales at the higher price point.

How many $60 games would you be willing/able to buy a year if you knew you couldn't sell them on the used game market once you finished it?

I know a lot of people who buy a game the day it comes out, play it for a week, then sell it for $40. The $20 they ultimately paid for it was worth the entertainment they got, but they wouldn't be able to buy so many games a year if they were truly $60 out of pocket each game.

Tycho even states that he has changed his mind slowly over the years - he admits that his cheap 20 year old self would not, and could not, agree with him today. He's not out of touch, but he has a different perspective now that he can afford to "Support the creators", and now that he makes his money from his creative efforts.

 

[figmentPez]

Why should they "get over it"? They want to be compensated for the product they create, why are people acting like thats a bad thing?

From Gabes Twitterfeed: "not saying you can't buy used stuff. just when you buy a used game you are not supporting developers. If that matters to you is your choice."

It's not a bad thing for creators to be compensated, but the used market is part of the product they create. The "right of first sale" is explicit in copyright law for a reason. I think that books, music, movies and other forms of media have benefited from a used market, just as console games have (and PC games used to). While it is true that a used copy of media doesn't directly produce revenue for the creator/publisher, that doesn't mean it has no positive impact. As General Specific already mentioned, many people buy new because they know they can sell it used later. A lot of hardcover books go on to be resold, and paperbacks as well. This didn't kill the book market, nor did it kill the sale of new music, movies, art or any other creative endeavor that is sold. In fact, I think all those markets would be much smaller if people were discouraged from resale of media.

The video game industry does not get it. Book publishers have known for a while that not everyone will buy a hardcover book and will wait for the cheaper paperback. Customers know a cheaper version will come out at some point, but the book publishers don't fear that happening. Nintendo does. They've stopped the Player's Choice line of titles because they don't want customers to expect a game to get cheaper. This is, I think, one of the major reason that Wii software sales are already dropping off (when the PS2 was still growing at this point in it's lifetime). This fear of cheaper prices shows a complete lack of understanding of the basic principles of economics. If game publishers as a whole don't grasp simple supply and demand, then how can they be expected to understand more complicated matters like the indirect benefit of a used market?

 

[Chibibar]

I believe the main problem is price. Game is VERY expensive especially for PS3 and XBOX360. Base price for these games are around 60-80$ EACH!!! yikes. I buy PC games from Steam. It still "own" the game (arguable) but at least it is first owner not pre-own

I notice a HUGE jump in sales when Steam goes on sale. There are time where popular title ran out of codes on Steam.

The used market. I do not believe that buying used game = piracy. Using the Car analogy, the person is buying the product and the original owner no longer own it. That is same for games UNLESS the original owner made a copy. To me, the new owner should be able to use all the feature since the old owner doesn't use it anymore.

 

[figmentPez]

He's not claiming that used==piracy. He mentioned off-hand that used games support the creators as much as piracy does (ie, not at all) but he in no way equates the two.

And he's dead wrong. Player has $400 to spend on games in a year. He buys a $60 game, plays it for a month, sells it for $30. Then he buys a new game for $60, plays it for another month, and sells it for $30, and so on... He ends up buying 12 new games in a year. If he can only get $20 for a used game (that $10 less the price is because of online), then he's down to only 9 games in a year on his budget. If he can't sell the games at all, he's down to 6 titles a year. Unless those currently buying used step up to buy more new (and I don't think that will happen), the game publishers have lost sales because of the damage to the used market.

 

[SpecialKO]

I know a lot of people bang on about it, but the advantage of DLC and online subscription services, from a business perspective, is that it's now easy to reward first buys, and make it a better deal.

 

[Covar]

So, for your failed and mangled analogy to hold, everyone would have to lose their online play and updates next February. Just like car warranties expire on the same date for new and secondhand owners.

Bingo.

 

[checkeredhat]

They price games high because they have to because of the console makers. Consoles are almost always sold at either a ridiculously low cost, or at a loss, and the creators rely on consumers being willing to pay high for the content to make a profit. If people were willing to buy the PS3 at $600 when it came out, they could have priced the games cheaper. They wouldn't have, obviously. But they could have. Point is, people aren't willing to pay that price for the console, but they clearly ARE willing to pay more for the games, even if reluctantly. So the prices are what they are.

We sold 360s, Wiis, and DSes at the store I used to work at. The store's cost for the Wii was only $4 less than we charged customers. It was about a dollar for the DS, and I can't remember the cost for the 360s, but I THINK it was even.

 

[figmentPez]

I'd feel a lot more generous about "supporting" the poor struggling multibillion dollar game publishers if the price point of video games wasn't so ridiculous and obviously bloated.

Check out Jason "LordKat" Pullara's rant about the latest version of Madden. It has a ton of sloppy coding and inexcusable lack of detail for the massive budget it has. The amount of in-game advertising is ridiculous and still they haven't put the effort into giving it the polish that any other game maker worth their salt would. Madden is one of the games that requires a $10 code to play online for used copies. The game is crap, and is solely riding on being the exclusive NFL football game. If Madden were in a competitive sector of the market, like every other game genre, they wouldn't be able to get away with the slip-shod work they put into each year's game. They can complain about a lack of new game sales when they start putting the effort into making the game worth the price they charge for it.