Used Video Games Now Extra Used: Publishers Adding 800MP Fee To Play Online

79 responses to “Used Video Games Now Extra Used: Publishers Adding 800MP Fee To Play Online”

1. 

   Xasrai

   July 19, 2011 at 8:31 am

   Good. I think it’s only fair that the companies that make the game get something back from the used game market after all this time.

   Reply
   1. 

      bennie

      July 19, 2011 at 8:48 am

      Why is it fair? When you buy a 2nd hand car, the manufacturer doesn’t get anything.. ditto for books, CD’s, DVD’s. When you buy a 2nd hand house the original builder doesn’t get anything.

      The game has been sold at retail price once already, the developer has made their profit from that copy of the game, why should they get a slice when that game is on-sold? It’s not like the developers aren’t making massive profits….

      Reply
      1. 

         Richard

         July 19, 2011 at 9:11 am

         When you buy a second-hand house, car, book, DVD or CD you’re buying a product – when you buy something with online multiplayer you’re buying access to a service.

         You need the passes for multiplayer, not singleplayer. Multiplayer is what requires constant maintenance and money.

         Reply
         1. 

            Shikaka

            July 19, 2011 at 9:30 am

            Absolute garbage. There’s only an ongoing maintenance cost to a publisher for multiplayer because of another anti-consumer choice that they are making — not supporting community dedicated servers.

            If a game offers third party dedicated server support then multiplayer costs the publisher nothing because the customers (and their ISPs and other server hosts) pay the bills for the servers and bandwidth.

            Publishers just don’t want to do this, because its not in their interests for people to still be playing FIFA 05 online when they’re trying to get people to buy FIFA 12. They want to retain control over their games so they can switch them off when the time comes.

            Ask id Software how much it costs them to still allow people to play multiplayer Quake, a 15 year old game. Zero. Because it’s the community that has always operated the servers for the game.

            It’s a terrible copout excuse to charge extra for secondhand games.

            Reply
            1. 

               Richard

               July 19, 2011 at 11:15 am

               Hey now, it’s not as if I like the idea of an online pass – I’m just speaking from the logical viewpoint about the difference between goods and services.

               “If a game offers third party dedicated server support then multiplayer costs the publisher nothing because the customers (and their ISPs and other server hosts) pay the bills for the servers and bandwidth.”
               That’s never going to happen, though, for the same reasons that cross-platform play will never happen. XBL is for P2P or publisher-hosted servers; nothing in-between (I assume PSN is similarly policied).

               TSH’s comment below about how “the seller and buyer can’t be playing at the same time” is a solid argument, but you have to consider that piracy (or any method that doesn’t require a disc) can probably allow that to happen.

         2. 

            TSH

            July 19, 2011 at 9:39 am

            You’re right, it does. But the seller and buyer can’t be playing at the same time, which means that even if the game is sold and bought on the same day, net server load difference is nil. If the game sits on EB’s shelf for a week, a month, the sever load is actually *reduced* by the fact that that copy is taken out of online “circulation”.

            Reply
            1. 

               Ad

               July 19, 2011 at 10:46 am

               Bad argument. There is virtually no secondhand market for PC games (at least in most games shops) and the console makers don’t allow dedicated third party servers as a matter of course.

            2. 

               Braaains

               July 19, 2011 at 12:31 pm

               But if you trade a game in it’s generally because you were finished with it. So if you’re not going to play it anymore, you’re effectively removing yourself permanently from the servers. That would be a permanent reduction in users that need to be supported. You then go and on sell the game and the server load goes back up again but the publisher gets no revenue from it.

               Say a game has 200,000 online players (who bought it new) after it’s been out for a month. After another month or two half of them have had enough and stop playing. They now only have to support 100,000 players which might allow them to scale it down to reduce costs due to the smaller number of players. But then those people go and trade in their old copies, the online user base goes back up to 200,000 players which prevents them from scaling down the support, thus costing them more money on an ongoing basis despite receiving no revenue from half the players they’re now supporting. It just doesn’t make economic sense to support these people. And really, why should the publisher care? The people who bought 2nd hand aren’t their customers so why should they support them?

            3. 

               Shikaka

               July 19, 2011 at 1:04 pm

               I appreciate your leveled response, but your presumption about the console manufacturers being the roadblock against third party dedicated servers on consoles is incorrect.

               Timegate studios’ Section 8 (not the Prejudice expansion however) allows players to run and operate their own dedicated servers on a PC for both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions.

               There’s no cross-platform play, but its proof that community operated servers are still possible on consoles and at the whim of a publisher/developer to offer.

               So the “ongoing costs to a publisher for multiplayer” argument as justification for this secondhand sale fee is simply invalid.

      2. 

         Braaains

         July 19, 2011 at 9:23 am

         When you buy a 2nd hand car the manufacturer generally DOES get something out of it from spare parts etc.

         Reply
         1. 

            WiseHacker

            July 19, 2011 at 10:40 am

            How do you explain refurbished parts then, Braains?

            Reply
            1. 

               Braaains

               July 19, 2011 at 12:53 pm

               I wouldn’t expect the manufacturer of the car to give me any support if I had problems with my refurbished parts. You buy a used car and stick used parts in it, the manufacturer won’t know or care who you are. And that’s fine, because you’re not actually asking them for anything so it’s not costing them anything. You buy a used game and expect to play it online, you’re asking the publisher to support that online play.

               The people who complain about this seem to be people who buy 2nd hand games and expect the same level of support from publishers/developers as people who buy new, even though they’re not actually paying any money to those publishers/developers.

      3. 

         Alinos

         July 19, 2011 at 12:20 pm

         The difference is that you don’t buy a game on day 1, Rush through it in 10hours and then sell it back to EB who sell it for 5 dollars less.

         Then theres also the fact that a car is a long term purchase for many.

         It doesn’t go day 1, someone buys it, day 2 person sells it. Day 4 person sells it again so on.

         I have tracked some used games and have seen them come back to the shop over 10 times. Which means the publisher got their Y profit of the initial copy instead of (10 times Y) profit

         I think used copies are fine, but there should be like a 3 month waiting period before a new release is able to be sold

         Reply
   2. 

      WiseHacker

      July 19, 2011 at 9:20 am

      You logic is easily defeated by this simple fact – developers are more than well paid for their efforts *DURING* the creation of the games.

      This is all just money grabbing by the game publishers.

      That aside, this move will only lead to two things: higher piracy as people crack the games to make them playable online and a significant turn down in sales as people show they are not going to stand for this nonsense.

      Reply
      1. 

         Braaains

         July 19, 2011 at 9:24 am

         You think developers are well paid for their efforts? There are a whole bunch of guys over at Team Bondi (or at least formerly of Team Bondi) who would like to have a word with you.

         Reply
         1. 

            WiseHacker

            July 19, 2011 at 10:38 am

            So team Bondi represent developers as a whole the world wide?

            Reply
            1. 

               James Maguire

               July 19, 2011 at 11:43 am

               It’s pretty well known that the majority of developers aren’t paid well for the work that they do. Kotaku have posted several articles which mention this.

            2. 

               WiseHacker

               July 19, 2011 at 12:29 pm

               OK, I admit I went a bit far with the word ‘well’.

               But at the end of the day, they are still PAID and DURING the games’ development.

               Most of these second hand arguments imply that developers see no money whatsoever until after the game is released.

               This is utter nonsense as to have someone do a job and not pay them is illegal in most of the world.

               As a game is made programmers are still paid, artists are still paid, composers are still paid, etc. When a game is finished it is the PUBLISHER that gets the significant cut of the sales – this assuming that the developer even gets any at all.

               Before anyone points this out, the independent scene is very different as most there do so as a hobby.

            3. 

               Braaains

               July 19, 2011 at 2:06 pm

               A lot of developers get bonuses and other payments from publishers after release based on how many copies the game sells. That only counts new sales, not preowned, so the preowned copies do directly cost the developer income. I’m not sure if the developers actually see a cut of the online code revenue, though, or only from the original sale.

            4. 

               AndyD

               July 20, 2011 at 7:01 am

               That’s an awfully shortsighted view. Sure, a developer may get paid during the production of a game, but if that game doesn’t sell well (new copies) then there is no next game, or the next game gets a smaller budget, which means the developer makes less money.

               I’m not saying that everyone must buy new games, I’m just saying that your argument in defense of used games being that developers make money anyway isn’t really valid.

   3. 

      MattM

      July 19, 2011 at 9:58 am

      The publishers are double-dipping.

      When a game is sold new, the publisher must budget for the buyer playing that game online.

      When the buyer sells or trades in the game, that buyer no longer has access to the game online, reducing the number of online users.

      When a second-hand gamer purchases the used game, that gamer gets access to the game online, restoring the number of online users to the original amount.

      Trading second hand games does allow access by more users; it simply transfers the license between users while keeping the total number of licenses (and therefore users) the same.

      Essentially, publishers are compensated once by the original purchaser of the game and then again by any subsequent purchaser, without having to provide any more resources (such as servers).

      Reply
      1. 

         James

         July 19, 2011 at 10:34 am

         I don’t sell my games, but I also usually stop playing them after a while, which also “reduces the number of online users”.

         The publisher would be counting on many users doing this to work out how much each online user is going to cost on average. That allows them to budget the cost of providing the service as a single one-off fee to each user.

         When a game is sold second hand though, the new user is likely to play the game just as much as the original user which throws those sorts of calculations out the window.

         Reply
2. 

   bennie

   July 19, 2011 at 8:44 am

   So I’ve already paid my annual Xbox live Gold membership fee, and now if I want to save myself a few bucks by buying these games 2nd hand, I have to pay extra for the privilege of playing these games online? I don’t think so..

   Reply
3. 

   McGarnical

   July 19, 2011 at 8:45 am

   I want to get upset at this but I really can’t. Anything that hurts EB Games’ business model is fine by me.

   “I’m looking for a game for my fifteen-year-old son. And you think he’ll like Sniper Ghost Mission Sector? I’ve never heard of it. $119.95? Seems a bit pricey. But if I trade in his copy of Black Ops and Bulletstorm it’s only $69.95?”

   Reply
   1. 

      Braaains

      July 19, 2011 at 9:33 am

      Yeah, that’s what I think it comes down to. This isn’t an assault on consumers but on the likes of EB, Game etc that make a killing on 2nd hand games.

      I think the effect of this will be to drive down the 2nd hand and trade-in value of these games. So ultimately once this settles in I don’t think it’ll cost the consumer any more – they’ll just pay $10 less to EB and give that $10 to the publisher for an online code.

      Meanwhile retailers can’t keep giving consumers $30 trade in for a near-new game then selling it for $95 and pocketing the entire margin. Especially when they (EB at least) actively push pre-owned games over new because they make a bigger margin on them.

      If you want to get angry over this, get angry at the retailers.

      Reply
      1. 

         Ryan

         July 19, 2011 at 11:37 am

         Eh, the way things are going there won’t be any retailers left. Digitial Distribution will probably take over everything: movies, games and television; even books with Kindle!

         Reply
         1. 

            WiseHacker

            July 19, 2011 at 12:31 pm

            Nah, they will still be around – I those who have crazy practices such as EB Games will either be forced to adapt or die out.

            Retailers are being shrill right now because our actions are marking the end of high profit margins.

            Reply
4. 

   Intercept

   July 19, 2011 at 8:51 am

   Yeah as long as if you buy them new you get the online code im cool with it TBH.

   I want the publishers to make good $ so they make good games. Just dont exploit us.

   Sort our digital distribution cuz currently is cheaper to buy retail online.

   Reply
5. 

   Shepard

   July 19, 2011 at 9:01 am

   I think its terrible, video game companies seem to feel as though they are different to book publishers or writers, movie producers ect, all have their work sold on the 2nd hand market.
   Plus its kinda just discriminating against online players, i dont do multiplayer but buy prreowned sometimes, what will happen when they want my money, 1s time free, $5 preowned disc-boot DLC?

   Reply
   1. 

      Braaains

      July 19, 2011 at 9:28 am

      If you buy preowned but don’t care about multiplayer then you’ll probably be better off. I think this kind of thing will force down the 2nd hand price (and trade-in value) of games that use it to allow for the extra outlay required to get the code. So if you’re not actually going to buy the online code, you’ll probably find yourself saving a few bucks on the cost of the game without then forking out that money to get a code.

      Reply
   2. 

      Jordaan

      July 19, 2011 at 9:54 am

      They are different. Other industries don’t have the same maintenance costs. Movie producers and book publishers don’t offer post-release fixes, or multiplayer servers. That costs money.

      Reply
      1. 

         WiseHacker

         July 19, 2011 at 12:33 pm

         Movie wise, I am not so sure – there are disk damages from the manufacture process and given the state of DRM there are also issues where the keys used are incompatible with some devices.

         Reply
         1. 

            Braaains

            July 19, 2011 at 2:19 pm

            I don’t know if damaged discs during the manufacturing process is really relevant, though. EVERY form of manufacturing makes allowances for a certain number of defective units coming off the line, and those costs are already factored into the price.

            Reply
   3. 

      Ad

      July 19, 2011 at 10:51 am

      Bad analogy. Whilst there are secondhand bookshops & CD/DVD retailers, they are a tiny part of the overall market.
      In comparison, go to EB or JB. At least a third of the store is dedicated to secondhand games. If other industries were in the same position, you can bet your last dollar that they’d be lobbying for a similar thing (just look at how the book industry prevented grey importing).

      Reply
6. 

   fckthepolice

   July 19, 2011 at 9:04 am

   what about if you buy the game and your brother wants to play online too?

   one account is dumb

   i wont buy any games that support this

   btw – ive never bought a used game.

   Reply
   1. 

      James

      July 19, 2011 at 10:38 am

      For all the online pass DLCs that have been released so far, there doesn’t seem to be any problem with other users on the console making use of the pass. As long as the person who activated the pass has an account on the console and has downloaded the online pass DLC, everyone else can use it.

      Reply
7. 

   isometric

   July 19, 2011 at 9:04 am

   How does this work when your Xbox dies and you need to replace it with a new one?

   Is it tied to your Xbox Live/PSN account, or to the console?

   Reply
   1. 

      Xasrai

      July 19, 2011 at 9:28 am

      My understanding (hope?) is t hat the licenses on any xbox are transferable once per year. Correct me if I’m wrong though.

      Reply
   2. 

      Batguy

      July 19, 2011 at 9:40 am

      It’s tied to your account and can be downloaded again at any point.

      Reply
8. 

   Shepard

   July 19, 2011 at 9:27 am

   And secondly, if you push gamers too far, implementing stuff people WILL pirate your games and pay the $10 instead, then there is an extra pre owned floating around at a cheeper price

   Reply
9. 

   Stevorooni

   July 19, 2011 at 9:27 am

   I don’t buy 2nd hand games so this doesn’t really bother me that much, but I dislike how the industry seems to be heading towards us buying a license for the game rather than the game itself.

   Will it get to the point where if the compoany goes down all of your games become unplayable because they can no longer connect to the mother ship? If we get to that point I think I’ll be finding a new hobby.

   Reply
   1. 

      Braaains

      July 19, 2011 at 10:32 am

      We’ve ALWAYS been buying a licence to the game, not the game itself. The difference is that games haven’t always had online functionality. Without that connectivity there just wasn’t any way for publishers to implement this kind of thing.

      This is pretty much a glimpse of the future. Once it goes to all-digital distribution (which is a matter of when rather than if, whether we like it or not) then we won’t even have the option of trading in old games or buying preowned, so the online pass will become redundant at that point.

      Reply
10. 

    The Insufferable Señor Steengo

    July 19, 2011 at 9:32 am

    You can include Red Faction Armageddon somewhat, you need to redeem a code online in order to unlock the destruction sandbox mode.

    Reply
11. 

    ODEED

    July 19, 2011 at 9:38 am

    I support this move.
    If you don’t like it you could always trade your consoles as well as your used games.
    Then you can use your trade in money to create your own company, develop and publish a game then give the game away for free!

    Reply
12. 

    Lone Wolf

    July 19, 2011 at 9:38 am

    I generally buy all my games new, but I refuse to pay to use Xbox Live solely to play other people, so my xbox is a loner.
    Why should I have to pay for something which I’m already paying my IP for and every other gaming system provides for free?
    Honestly, I don’t really care one way or the other, but it does reduce the value of the game’s multiplayer component, replayability for some people, the value for those who wish to sell it on and likely lowering the number of new copies sold as a result.
    If this really affects people, they’ll speak by not spending.

    Reply
13. 

    Batguy

    July 19, 2011 at 9:39 am

    If they stick with this, there’s likely to be a market correction in the used game market anyway – you’ll get $10 less for the trade-in price if the code is missing or used.

    Something I see as an interesting possibility is an online code marketplace. If you don’t want your multiplayer code, sell it online for, say, 650msp! Then used game buyers can save a couple of bucks and get it for 700msp. It seems like it should be yours to sell, but the same could be said for the disc itself, so how would the publishers react to that?

    Reply
    1. 

       miniluv101

       July 19, 2011 at 10:10 am

       I agree. I buy new games habitually but seldom take them online. After playing through the single player portion I trade them in. Code or no code I’m over the insistence of publishers to include a multiplayer mode in every game. I don’t play it, I don’t want it and I don’t want to pay for its development – especially if its been shoehorned in to prevent second hand sales. Last night I got so sick of Dirt 3 aggressively advertising it’s add on sales to me I took my console offline. This initiative may be put in place to encourage users to buy games new – I have routinely done exactly that for the last 20 years – and this is really pissing me off.

       Reply
14. 

    Cannon de Rosnay

    July 19, 2011 at 9:59 am

    I would say this second-hand stuff can’t really be compared to other products (e.g. DVDs, books, etc.) due to the differences between them and games.

    As Richard said, it costs money to maintain multiplayer services and it costs money for developers to provide patches and updates (though, to be fair, the fact they have to patch something often means they are to blame). When talking about say, books, when you resell a book, the publisher and author don’t have to pay for the new owner’s usage of the book.

    Consider this: You make a popular game with a very strong multiplayer feature. Soon afterwards, as it gets older, more and more people will be able to buy for and want second hand copies.

    Your earnings from that game gradually lessen as people start buying second hand games as more second hand copies are available in the market or just borrow from friends/family.

    Now, you’ve earned a lot from this game, but now it becomes a liability and starts draining these earnings to maintain the servers and provide updates, support and patches (no game is perfect. StarCraft: Brood War still gets patched). Depending on the costs of development, sales and DLC, your profit will vary, but it still means you have a drain on resources on a product you no longer make a lot of money off.

    What’s more, if you stop the support or the multiplayer services, people will write angry letters, be all pissed off and you’ll end up having ex-fans who now hate you.

    Obviously, it may happen this way. People may still buy new copies, the multiplayer may not last that long, etc. But this was an example.

    As a consumer, I really dislike this idea of paying for a preowned copy to play online. But I can see why they’re doing it.

    Though it’s obvious that this is a concerning issue and may lead down to a path of greed and extortion.

    We’ll have to see.

    Reply
15. 

    bazuden

    July 19, 2011 at 10:01 am

    No different to when you buy games off Steam. You can only use those on one account, and they make you pay for the whole game, if you want to use it on a different account. Noone is complaining about that.

    EB, GAME and JB killed the second hand market for me years ago. I’ll be glad to see them take a hit, after years of ripping off consumers. But they’ll probably just end up buying online passes off Sony, etc, and offering them on a discount, or for free.

    Reply
    1. 

       Grandmaster B-Funk

       July 19, 2011 at 10:34 am

       but i consider steam a personal account, and while consoles are more shared than others.

       me and my brother share a PS3, but i’ve got my own steam account, and if he wants to play a game on it he just uses my account…

       and some games catter to this, if it’s a singleplayer game, you can have multiple saves, and on games like battlefield bad company 2, you can just log into a different EA account.

       Reply
       1. 

          bazuden

          July 19, 2011 at 12:31 pm

          There’s no reason why you and your brother can’t do the same with your PSN account.

          In fact, all my friends with a PS3 or Xbox 360 just share accounts anyway. I don’t personally know a single household that has separate accounts on their console.

          Hell, thats the whole point of a console: just put the game in and play. No one wants to muck around switching accounts before playing a game. Its bad enough that we have to wait for goddamn updates!

          Reply
          1. 

             Jonathon Tree

             July 19, 2011 at 6:37 pm

             I don’t know about your living conditions, but each of my housemates as separate accounts on both of our consoles.

             Re: account mucking around.
             360. ’nuff said.

             Reply
16. 

    Darth Guybrush

    July 19, 2011 at 10:10 am

    I’ll just do what I do now – buy from overseas for NEW titles at SECOND HAND PRICES and not give publishers a cent more.

    Since November last year I’ve spent nearly $975.00 at OzGameShop.com alone USD $2226.00 on Steam since my first purchase.

    Viva la consumer choice!

    Reply
17. 

    The Real Deal

    July 19, 2011 at 10:11 am

    Heaven forbid these companies actually try to make money in a capitalist society. The hide of them.

    Reply
18. 

    Rebecca

    July 19, 2011 at 10:23 am

    I don’t think it’s such a terrible idea either. When buying a used game none of that money goes back to the publisher and with some titles costing upwards of 50 mil to make it’s got to be harder to break even, let alone make a considerable profit when people can just buy used. Paying extra to unlock this feature is certainly better than adding microtransactions that can unbalance a game, say by buying an epic sword in the store that out ranks any found in the actual game. That’s just my opinion anyway.

    I can see how this could be frustrating for people who pay $40-$50 for a new-ish release used game and only to pay another $10 or so when they get home to unlock something that came with it in the beginning but if we want more games coming out companies need money, a lot of it.

    Reply
19. 

    Jiff

    July 19, 2011 at 10:25 am

    So what if I buy a game and go to exchange it if I don’t like it? How do I prove the online code hasn’t been used?
    Also, will this be used as another form of region control? What if I buy at a lower price from overseas and find I can’t use a US online code?
    This does not bode well.

    Reply
    1. 

       Jiff

       July 19, 2011 at 10:35 am

       AND.. is this a stepping stone to paying for single player as well as online on second hand games?

       Reply
20. 

    Ad

    July 19, 2011 at 10:53 am

    At this particular time, you’re an idiot if you buy secondhand anyway. If you go to Ozgameshop or any of the UK based online sellers, you can get a new game for cheaper than secondhand – $50-60 for a new release – and the dev gets some money from it. You get all the content. Everyone wins, except for Australian retailers (and who really cares about them? 😉 )

    Reply
21. 

    Reoh

    July 19, 2011 at 11:21 am

    So what stops people just slipping the multiplayer details inside the box on resale?

    Also, with how cheap you can self-import games I’ve never visited a second-hand gameshop.

    Reply
22. 

    DENAz

    July 19, 2011 at 11:57 am

    (Imagine a car manufacturer designing a car that once sold used no longer has functioning passenger seats – and can only be driven in your driveway.)

    Thats stupid, does a car manufacturer provide you with an ongoing service that costs them money???

    Reply
23. 

    Stop being tight arses and support the industry not the stores…

    July 19, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    As long as stores like EB continue to rape the gaming industry, the developers have a right to do this.
    EB selling the same game multiple times and making 500% profit in the same game and the developers not seeing a single cent after the first sale will kill off developers.

    Unless you buy a game from EB on launch day, they can not be trusted. No game is ever sealed from EB, how do you know you are buying a new/unused game?? I have been a victim of their dodgy practices and have seen many more, I no longer buy from them..

    Reply
24. 

    Lumpyjoe

    July 19, 2011 at 12:59 pm

    I don’t have a problem with this, in fact, if the publishers decided to enforce this model for pc games in return for getting rid of the shitty drm I would be stoked

    Reply
25. 

    RichardH

    July 19, 2011 at 1:26 pm

    I’m actually surprised that they’re gearing to fight the resale of discs. Why not just put all your time and effort into an upgraded download service ala steam so people cannot trade games in at all.

    Actually that raises an interesting point – if they successfully kill second hand sales, then wouldn’t that also kill video game shops that depend on it to keep their doors open?

    Reply
26. 

    Underworld

    July 19, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    Hold on wait a minute. So the code only unlocks online for one account? So if you have 2 people in the house with an online account, the second person has to buy a code just to play now? That is complete crap.

    I don’t mind the pass. But it should unlock online for all accounts on the system.

    Reply
27. 

    Snacuum

    July 19, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    I am sick and tired of this crap, for all the people supporting this, when were you born? Did you grow up enjoying companies rooting your ass? Gotten used to it enough so that every time anybody say, “Well now we need to charge you a little bit more for no reason,” you all say “Sure that’s fine you’re just a company that wants to make more money, I’ll support you in your endevour!”

    Reply
    1. 

       Braaains

       July 19, 2011 at 5:12 pm

       Except they’re not charging me any more. I don’t buy used games, I buy them new. So I don’t have to pay extra to get the code. So it doesn’t affect me (i.e. the publisher’s customer) at all.

       If you want to use the service they’re providing, why shouldn’t they have the right to demand some money for it?

       I think this sums it up pretty well… http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/8/25/

       Reply
       1. 

          Snacuum

          July 20, 2011 at 12:30 am

          “Except they’re not charging me any more. I don’t buy used games, I buy them new. So I don’t have to pay extra to get the code. So it doesn’t affect me (i.e. the publisher’s customer) at all.”

          I beleive ANYBODY who views or interacts with a product is the customer of it’s manufacturer. Yes I even consider pirates to be customers, people whose needs or desires may be served by a product regardless of how they obtained it. Creating a product or service of upmost satisfaction in quality that competes with your rivals should be the forefront of production, creating a customer base that will be in some way or form providing payment (even if it’s in the form of second-hand revenue that allows the propagation of more new sales.)

          I don’t know about you, but if it wasn’t for second hand games I would not even own or have played as many games as I have to this day. I would not be a customer of so many of these “poor ill-begotten” publishers if such avenues were gone, I wouldn’t have cared about their fantastic new developments if I didn’t get to play their old ones.

          As for the ongoing services, there’s no way that used sales affects them to such a high degree that these services are nullified. Not to mention I remember a fantastic system that could ease their pain so quickly. The return of the USER DEDICATED SERVER. Players, ISPs, and independent server companies can start their own dedicated or P2P servers with no cost to the publishers, enabling something very important to happen: People playing their games. But that would be handing control over to the players… oh no!

          Also how many of you cared about this kind of stuff when you were children? Where all you happy memories of gaming came from? All that mattered to me was having said game so I could have fun playing said game, maybe even enjoying it with friends. Maybe back then developers and publishers concerned themselves with making good games that kids wanted to play, and the good ones got the money.

          Reply
          1. 

             Braaains

             July 20, 2011 at 1:37 pm

             You can believe whatever you like. But the publishers don’t give a toss what you believe, because you’re not buying anything from them. As the link above mentioned, if you buy your games used from EB or wherever, then you’re an EB customer, not a customer of whoever the original publisher was. So if you’ve got complaints you should take them to the retailer.

             It’s really not that big a deal. You don’t like paying $10 or whatever for an online code when you buy used games? Just demand EB (or whoever) give you a $10 discount on the game to cover the cost of the code. Since you’re actually buying something from them, they might care.

             I’ve bought very few used games over the years – generally only when I couldn’t find what I wanted new (Rez on PS2 for example). The reason being that the price difference between the two is generally pretty minor, and for the sake of the few extra bucks I’d rather see some of my money going to the people who actually made the game, in the hope that they’ll make more.

             I didn’t care about this stuff when I was a kid because I had no idea of how games were made or how much time, effort and money went into making them (and it’s a hell of a lot more these days). I’m really not sure how that’s relevant to the discussion at hand, though. There wasn’t really any used game market back in those days, other than private sales/trades with other kids at school – there was no EB or wherever to go and trade in games.

             “Maybe back then developers and publishers concerned themselves with making good games that kids wanted to play, and the good ones got the money” – this is a bizarre statement that pretty much invalidates your entire argument. Because with preowned sales, the good developers and publishers DON’T get the money, regardless of how good their games are or how many kids want to play them.

             Reply
28. 

    Seb

    July 19, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    DLC region locking on PS3 stuffs this up in a nasty way.

    When you import a US or Asian PS3 edition of one of these games, then the single use code will only work with a PSN account from the matching region.

    So you can’t play the multiplayer at all with your usual Aussie PSN account. Happened to me with Dead Space 2 imported from US.

    Reply
29. 

    Janek

    July 19, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    I don’t like this a bit. We’re already paying for a subscription service and the new owner of a prepended game will need to purchase all the dlc again anyway. Including the initial selling price of the game, they are making LOTS of money already.

    Also, the better a game is, the less likely it is to get traded or re-sold. The used games market should help prevent crappy games our games with no replay incentive.

    Reply
30. 

    Dain Bramage

    July 19, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    The only thing that pisses me off about this is that most game developers are giving up on single player games to focus on multiplayer. I hate multiplayer and by god, I FUCKING HATE SCREAMING 12 YEAR OLD JERKS AND THEIR STUPID OPINIONS!

    Reply
31. 

    Duck Pancakes

    July 19, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    Can anyone tell me what it actually cost to run an online multiplayer game that uses P2P?

    Reply
32. 

    Franz

    July 19, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    More greed by corporations. This is why America is done for.

    Reply
33. 

    Daniel Green

    July 19, 2011 at 10:10 pm

    I only skimmed the comments to see if these points have been made so please ignore if they have.

    Using the car example mentioned above: I cannot use a friends car to make a copy of that car and thereby not effectively pay anything for that copy.

    Piracy has caused alot of heartache to the games industry, and also retailers. It’s only natural that developers are trying to make a buck. They’ve lost so much already. And this is much easier than taking people to court as the music industry was forced to do.

    If you have ever pirated a game, then this as far as I’m concerned why this is happening. It may not be the direct result of piracy, but it certainly has not helped at all.

    Sure, used game sales are effectively the same in that the developer gains no money from both second hand trade and piracy, but with piracy, and multiplayer the server load would be increased.

    No matter what at the end of the day, most game companies have stockholders. This means that they are under pressure to report higher and higher profits at every report cycle. At some point just making games becomes a huge gamble and making an increased profit becomes harder.

    When a profit is not made, stock prices fall, which is effectively the value of the company, which then affects how much money that it has access to from investors, which means lesser quality games…
    This is just the next big idea to add a little money on top.

    That’s my basic understanding of publicly traded companies anyway. If I’m wrong someone please correct me.

    Reply
34. 

    Jubs

    July 19, 2011 at 11:02 pm

    I completely support this and things like this. If there’s any situation that requires consumers to pay more money for something, it will create massive amounts of complainers, completely blind to all reason. I’m not saying all of those with criticism fall into this category but it is easily most of them.

    Games are a luxury. It is not food, it is not transportation, it is not medicine. If the individual has to pay $20 more for a game they don’t have to buy, get over it.

    Reply
35. 

    kris

    November 21, 2011 at 5:18 am

    I will make it an explicit point now to either buy used copies of these games… or not buy them at all. And I will insist on buying those used copies only if they cost at least 10$ less than new… and I won’t be buying any online passes.

    I think we should vote with our wallets on this. If we don’t it won’t be long before you will just pay to play a game once. And if you want to play it over again, you can buy a “replay pass” for 5$.

    I also have to agree with what some said. There are some games I buy new, and some I buy used… The games I bought new generally was because I played earlier copies of the game used and liked them enough to want to buy the next one in the series when it came out.

    Generally, I won’t be inclined to fork over 60$ for a new game if I’m not really excited about it (which I only will be if I got to play an earlier one in the series and really liked it).

    So… without some way for me to sample older games for cheap… they won’t be getting my business on any new games.

    Wonder how many more people there are just like me.

    Fuck it… if they keep this up. I may just be sticking to buying used games made before this passcode madness caugt on. Plenty of great games from 2 3 years ago I haven’t played yet.

    And I allways enjoy replaying classics I already own… must do more of that. (I really don’t trade in my games at all, rather keep em and replay em gain in a year or so)

    Reply
36. 

    gernötli

    January 6, 2012 at 3:11 am

    i guess first they reckon a lot play old games for free, they will be surprised that the same people won’t pay for this!

    i.e. i played since ’93 Frontier i will play it still in future, old rotten whatever…
    BUT i wouldn’t spend one red cent to play the old crap via a browser, never.

    since they miss any good new ideas the continousely resell old ones.
    Nintendo, always kept all rights on their softs as you know.

    let’s say first it was released for SNES (super famicom) later some appeared on Playstation (all the Dragonball shit, in europe about ten years after the release for SNES in japan, full price for a Disc with roundabout 1Meg of data, lol)
    you never could buy a “low price” nintendo game (except used or black market), they took all cartridges back to prevent from lower prices (they are extreme, really).

    then some was released for the various portables of nintendo, again remakes.

    finally you will find them on a whatever “I-thing”, for a legal fee of course.

    —

    well, roundabout 100 years ago, one had a brillant idea that could perhaps solve all energy problems.
    what uttered his investor?

    “if i can’t mount a counter to get a fee for the used energy, what it will be good for?”

    perhaps for good of mankind?
    aha, doesn’t makes you rich, hm, well that’s a argument…

    Reply
37. 

    gernötli

    January 6, 2012 at 3:55 am

    they really got a problem, people like me and you kris, we are bad customers.
    many free opensource games exist (i’m also involved to it).
    being part of such a community is even if you only play, far more interesting i guess.

    and best of all, all for free and if your’e lucky some of your ideas will find a way in the game.

    we could have only dreamed of such when we was young.

    well, i guess it needs a little more to get keep us from playing used games or opensource.

    a fee for played hours or try’s yes that was to foresee, but imo that won’t work.

    as example, many would have liked to play warcraft, but the monthly fee is far to high and most (lower class) gamers moved to Guild Wars because of that. the wallet already decides and ever has (except for some wealthy).

    personaly i hate this system of fees, it’s a rip off imo.
    i buy a product and i own it, that’s how i feel as a swiss about that.
    i know software devs. have a different view to that.
    you pay a lot of money, at best your whole income, and DIDN’T own one Bit of it!

    that’s ****

    playing for a fee is not really new.
    back in the late 80’s INTV (the leftovers of Mattels Intellivision) start to sell
    games that whas downloadable via a telephone modem and recorded to a tapedeck.
    but the fee was fairly low then, we should think about such, it’s ok to get $5 or $10 for such if you “own” the game later on. but not as a fee for each time i play. this is more evil rather a coin op (the thing is on a coinop you know how much you spent and if the mony was over – game over. if it’s charged from your account you won’t see how much you spent), you played then for 25cent’s (in US i guess) to play a game, that was already a rip off (SFr1.- in switzerland, only to compare, prices are always higher in switzerland, i guess they think everybody owns a bank in switzerland, which is not true).

    i guess the future (even if i don’t like) will be games that are free to play, but you can buy strength (points) for hard cash instead of evolving in the game.
    this already makes a lot of money, there is a developers talk to that somewhere on Frontier forums (looking for new ideas and why browser games get so successful).

    they draw a picture of a future (not without sarkasm) where we get rewarded with points for everything (brushing your teeth, because it’s healthy i.e.)
    the points will supersede money and you get payed in points and use points for whatever needs you have. have a laugh!

    Reply
38. 

    gernötli

    January 6, 2012 at 4:13 am

    further i didn’t see anything really new on the list above, all old concepts which has been madeover every damned year. This won’t work dear EA and i feel really sorry that the once best company felt into this state of “we (re)do every year the same shit”.

    apart from graphics nothing changes, well like in the past, good to look on but not really relevant for a good gameplay and loses magic after a short while (that’s why they HAVE to come off every year with the same crap).

    while longtime “hardcore” gamers still play their old favorites, gameplay is much more important rather Gfx.

    but of course they don’t like to see us playing the same over and over for years, they would starve if everybody would do so.

    but please if you like to get me back as a customer buying games for a full price (i had for many years, inty’s games had cost from $50 to $100 here in switzerland), BE INVENTIVE i mean BE INVENTIVE (not with the ways of getting rich no! BE INVENTIVE with games concepts) and don’t just resell old ideas.

    Reply