Why An Xbox With "Anti-Used Games" Tech Makes Perfect Sense

So, we've heard from a source that the next Xbox may feature some kind of anti-used games technology. When you first read that, your first instinct was probably to think it's either bullshit or the worst idea a video game company has ever had.

It is, I believe, neither.

In fact, if it ends up being correct, it makes total sense. Why? Over the past year we've seen developers, publishers and then even platform holders like Sony embrace the idea of the "online pass", a concept designed to either prevent game trade-ins or get more money out of those skipping new purchases.

It's a movement that, as time goes on, will only pick up steam. And now that nearly all major publishers are on-board with the idea in one form or another, the next logical step is to embed the practice in gaming hardware.

Remember, our source didn't tell us the machine would permanently and irrevocably bar the playing of second-hand games. Just that there'd be measures in place to prevent it. No company would lock a machine from ever letting you borrow a game, or ever trade one in. There'd be too much resistance from consumers for the former and from both consumers and retailers for the latter.

But restrictive measures implemented on the hardware side of things would eliminate the need for publishers and developers to come up with their own cumbersome and inconsistent "online pass" systems, such as we're stuck with today. It could suddenly be universal, part of the console itself, tied to user accounts or disc serials or something. If such measures were in place, every game would require an unlock code or online pass to be played if bought second-hand. Or even borrowed. Which would suck, but then, I'm not saying I like this idea. Just that this is where I see it headed.

It would satisfy publishers, who would be seeing massive incentives given for people to buy games new. It would also, I guess, satisfy pre-owned retailers like GameStop, who if able to sell "online passes" for these games would at least retain the option of trading old games in for new ones.

Know that, well, this is not what we know. All we know is what Stephen posted earlier, when he wrote there'd be "some sort of anti-used game system as part of [Microsoft's] so-called Xbox 720". This is just me taking current industry trends, this rumour and building outwards.

But I think it's entirely feasible. What do you think?

WATCH MORE: Xbox News


Comments

    I hope it isn't true. I've always preferred consoles because they AREN'T PCs, but slowly they creep towards becoming one and the same.

      Welcome to what PC consumers have to put up with, you know the companies solution to stop piracy : Punish legit consumers and make it super hard to get the game over the actual solution of make it easier over pirating (the Gabe Solution). As we can see publishers appear to be going down the same path of their utter complete failure in piracy prevention on PC, with there used game prevention by punishing the legit buyers. You have more than one console, TOO BAD!, want to lend to friend so you can convince him to buy to play online together, YOU WISH!. Publishers need to know that Gabe has the answer!.

        You realize that the Gabe Solution as you fucking put it.

        Is to lock your game's down to a single account that is against the ToS to share with someone else.

        If they lock games to a gamertag/profile. They would be achieving the Gabe solution as you put it. Since it would be no different than what steam currently does.

          The Gabe Solution might lock things down, but he sells the games damn cheap.

      F*** this is why i have been screaming for a gaming crash..... We need to take the power back the consumer not the fucking developers....... Sigh and then we have people defending this move arghhh

        DO NOT BLAME the developers. Yes, some are greedy little shits but most AREN'T!

        IT'S THE PUBLISHERS that are doing all the damage & legislative mooing...

          the problem here is this:

          When you buy a second-hand car or a second-hand book, you are buying an inferior product from the original. It has been used, worn and potentially damaged. It's lifespan has already been reduced. As such, there is strong incentive to buy a new product over a used

          This is not the case with software. When you buy a piece of software second-hand, you are getting the exact same product as was originally purchased: a license to use the software. As such, there is absolutely no incentive to buy a new product over the original. This results in reduced sales for the original producers of the software. However, it then goes further. The person who bought the software second-hand then has the right to expect to be able to use the multiplayer servers and receive support from the company that produced the software. This incurs expenses, for which they are receiving absolutely no reimbursement from the sale of the game. You may claim that there is no additional expense as there is still only the single piece of software in use, but this is not the case as there is an expected and calculated lifespan for each game. Producers base their cost estimates around this lifespan and plan their original pricing accordingly. However, when that lifespan then doubles or triples as the software is handed on to the next buyer, the expenses go up with no additional income incoming, resulting in expenditure for which the game company has no actual income to cover. it comes directly out of their profits instead of the planned expenditures.

          This, in a nutshell and in no way a comprehensive explanation, is why producers are starting to implement things like online passes and anti-used-game measures

        It will happen - it's already happening to some extent in that the big middle class of gaming is hollowing out, I also think there will some sort of Facebook/Mobile gaming crash, also the prices on games are dropping faster (ie: from full price to bargain bin) than at any time in my memory

        While the core gaming audience will always support AAA titles they won't support this sort of locked to one account/console BS, if you doubt it take a look at the PC - the PC audience these days is basically MMOs and Social Games (ie: Genres you cant duplicate elsewhere) the hardcore crowd on Steam are mostly there for the specials, only a small subset of them would buy full price PC games at release - you can see this anytime sales figures of major AAA titles are mentioned and PC sales are left out of the report - it's because compared to console sales (which is where the hardcore crowd has moved to) they are insignificant.

    Oh of course it makes perfect sense! First Microsoft makes you pay to play multiplayer (Xbox Live) which is free on both Playstation 3 and PC, then developers start with this 'online pass' bullshit and Microsoft realises they can cash in so they disable the ability to play used games all together.

    It's simple - Microsoft is greedy, game developers and publishers are greedy. Everyone is greedy, fuckers.

      They have the right to make money though, if they invest the time and money into making a great game and then only see a fraction of the return becasue all the trade an save bullshit than they should be allowed to bring in something like this.

      What you don't realise is that if less and less money gets made than less and less games will be made. No risks on innovation will exzist. It will continue to be mw9, AC12 and halo37 etc.

      I don't think it is a matter of greed it's a matter of being paid for a service they provide. I bet when you go to work you expect to be paid for all the work you do.

        No, it is greed. The used games market is a very, very VERY small part of game sales, eliminating it is a greedy as you can be.

        What happens if a friend brings a game over? Do I have to sign into his account or can I just not play it? It's just greed, the developers and publishers are making millions of dollars and aren't losing anything to used games market. They just want more money.

          A small market? I don't think you know how the 2nd hand market really works, it is where all the money is made for companies like eb and game. If you need proof, take a copy of a new release game and trade it in for 40 bucks, come back the next day and it will be on the shelf for $109 as opposed to the $119 new price. Tell me that isn't where all the money is.

          If it was a very very small part of gaming no one would miss it.

          The fact is that it isn't a very very small part of gaming.

          When i worked at EB the store only earned enough money of New games to keep the power/salary/rent going. Any and all profit was made from used sales. When we could resell one copy of a game 10 times in the first month

            I'm a PC gamer anyway, I couldn't give a fuck about Xbox or the used game market. But this still sounds stupid to me..

              Robert, I'm going to say this outright: People like you are what give me pangs of shame every time I tell people I'm involved in the games industry.

              You burst some half-baked opinion to the masses in the most rude, aggressive and obnoxious way possible, showing an massive amount of undeserved self-entitlement in the process, and as soon as your position is rebutted with proper arguments, you react with "I don't care, it doesn't affect me, I'm just putting my two cents in on a topic I know nothing about"
              ______________________________
              With that out of the way:

              Microsoft as a corporation exist to make money. That is not greed, that is business. What make them unique is that historically they have gone about this by putting developers first, consumers second and shareholders third.

              Microsoft are all about market dominance through platforms. If they put this feature into play, you can almost guarantee it won't be for direct profits, but a move in order to make the platform more attractive for Developers, which in turn brings more and better choices for consumers.

    I hope it goes through, more money in the Developers pocket. Which may cause games to drop in price.

    People can cry as much as they'd like but a lot of developers believe they lose more money through second hand / preowned sales compared to 'potential' customers whom illegally obtain it; I agree.

    Before people go yeah @#$^@#% in regards to that, you will find that their are two types of people who illegally obtain games.

    1) The ones that didn't plan to get it in the first place and just deem it a waste.
    2) The people who want to give it a proper go and to see if it's worth the money, in which most cases they end up buying it because they DID deem it worthy.

      I don't think you can lose money that isn't yours. Buying a second hand game doesn't cost the developers any money. Sure it's opportunity cost, but so what. The solution to that is make a better game and incentivise early buyers. It's a weird philosophy that they would think they have some intrinsic right to everyones cash, and people who don't want to buy from them are somehow thieving a product.

      Personally i have no issue with them kicking out the Used gamers.

      For the sole reason the within 12 weeks the price has already dropped below what they would have paid gamestop for a used copy.

      Used gamers complain that if it wasn't for used games they wouldn't be able to play as many games near release as they do.

      If you aren't forking over Week 1 cash, then you don't deserve to be playing it week 1. If cash is an issue, then people should buy it when it reaches their price range.

        Nothing worse than buying a new game and having a bunch of proletariats clogging up the servers.

        Actually without the ability to trade in my old games I probably wouldn't have bought new copies of Mass Effect 2, Splinter Cell Conviction and Batman Arkham City. Also the used game market serves a very important function towards the end of a generation and beyond keeping available all the games that have gone out of print.

      But the thing is that if someone buys a game second hand, the developer hasn't "lost" any money at all.

      Here's a hypothetical to push my view. As you know, when you pay for a game you pay for a few things; firstly, you pay for the right to use the software, and you also pay an amount to keep the servers running etc. Now, lets say that for each copy of a game ever created, there is a little "slot" where the game sits. When someone purchases a copy of the game, the game is removed from the slot, and in its stead the money is placed in the slot instead. This money is used to keep the servers running, feed the developers, etc. Now, when someone buys a game second-hand, it is not a valid argument that they aren't paying the developers duly, because there is no game being removed from the slot, and the original money to feed the developers is still in the slot.

      Bottom line is, when someone buys a second-hand game, it's not as if another copy of the game is being sold. As far as anyone should be concerned it's still the belonging of one guy. This business practice has worked for centuries and it's not undercutting the developer in any way whatsoever. Buying a game second hand is not any different from buying a book second hand, or a car second hand. It is NOT. It is a perfectly legitimate business practice, and the developers are not losing any money.

        That's a good point with the 'slot' analogy. I don't think I've heard anyone put forward that idea before (or I just forgot that they did, or even skimmed over it amongst the surrounding text :P)

          Thanks, I was a little worried that it might just be my brain not working correctly/ridiculously :P

          Very well put, Toasty Fresh!

          The thing is that when someone sells a game to someone else (whether it's directly to someone else, or to a store like Gamestop, in which the game is then in turn sold to someone else), in order for the new owener to be able to play the game, it requires the original owner to part with the title and no longer have access to it (short of buying another copy if they ever decide to). One person cannot play a used official copy of a game without someone else first giving up their ability/access to play it. That's just the nature of the beast.

          The Publisher is no worse off having guy #2 playing that used copy of a game than they would be if guy #1 had heald onto it and kept on playing it regularly.

          It's simply a huge logical fallacy to assume that every single purchase of a used game takes by default takes away a would-be purchase of a new copy of the game. Some people just don't want to pay the full price of the game. And even if they did, they would wait until a new copy drops so low in price that it's basically a drop in the bucket for the publisher. Sure, if the used game market were to be fully eliminated, it would push some people to buy new who otherwise wouldn't, but it wouldn't be the field day of sales that I think some publishers/game companies think it will be. And it would probably even push away many long time gamers, resulting in lost sales.

          I remember reading an article a couple/few years back with someone from M$ saying something like, "Twice as many people played Gears of War 2 than actually bought it" (at least I think that was the statistic they used). But how did they come to that conclusion? Was it based on different systems going online with the game, or different gamer tags? Some people might have rented it.. some might have borrowed it from a friend (which upon liking it may have lead to a new sale in some cases)... and if it's based on unique gamer tags, there could be multilpe people living under the same roof with different gamer tags who use the same system and same copy of the game. There are many variables to explain this statistic, and eliminating those variables wouldn't have magically lead to sales of the game coming anywhere close to double what they already were.

          It's kind of similar to the "logic" that movie studios put into assuming that everytime a movie is illegally downloaded, that's equal to a lost ticket sale. Now, not that I condone illegally downloading movies (and I do see that as being a very different beast than buying a used game), but the logical fallacy is still pretty much the same. A stuido assumes that had each and every person who downloaded the movie not been able to do so, that they would have gone out and bought a ticket to see it. And that's simply not true. A lot of people just wouldn't want to go pay the price to see it at the theater, so they would either go without seeing it at all, or would wait until it either ends up on TV or they could rent it dirt cheap from their bare-bones Netflix account or from Redbox. Some people may even have already gone to the theater and paid to see the movie and liked it a lot, so much so that they fully plan to buy the official DVD or Blu-Ray when it comes out, but they like the movie so much that since the option is there, they go ahead and download it in the mean time between seeing it theatrically and owning it officially at home. In this latter case, no money was really lost at all.

          Frankly, IMO, this really comes down to sheer corporate greed. I mean, really, has there really ever been a solid case made (based on solid logic and solid statistics) that proves that a game that lost money would have been a run-away hit had it not been for the used gaming market? The thing is most games live or die based on two primary factors... how good they are, and how well they are marketed. Those that fail often fail because they were either crap to begin with, or not enough was done to get the word out about them. Those that are hits do well and have lots of first hand sales, and are very, very profitable... so it's really only obnoxious corporate greed that makes them want to/need to try and eliminate the used gaming market and control every little aspect of how we play and access the games that we play. If they just made more good games and less crap, things would go a lot better for the publishers out there.

          I also don't agree with those saying that comparing used games to used cars doesn't hold up since games don't deteriorate and cars do. For one thing, cars are only one of many things that can be bought second hand. There are many other things that either don't deteriorate or deteriorate much more slowly than a car that can also be purchased second hand without it being an issue. The fact that it's legal to buy those things second hand and that there's no major push to stop it is still the same across the board for all other things.

          Also, games will hold up over time if taken care of properly. But CDs, DVDs, and (to a lesser extent thanks to the protective coating) Blu-Rays can get scratched.... they can get damanged. Also, for people who not only care about being able to play the game but also are particular about having the original cases and care about the condition that they are in, that is a factor as well. I mean, a pristine disc that comes in a beat up case is kind of similar to a used car that has a beat up, dented exterior, but has all of the mechanical, suspension, and braking compontents working in tip top shape. If functions as good as new, but it's not pretty to look at.

          Part of why they want to do stuff like this is to apparently stop piracy, and the publishers want it to be considered a form of piracy to buy and play a used game. But frankly that's absurd. I don't see why games or entertainment media should get this kind of unique treatment when most other products that we buy can be resold with no problem.

          And basing it on a piracy argument is absurd to me. Sure, it's illegal to make copies of a game and sell them (as well it should be), but to sell the official copy if you no longer want it shuold be just fine. Let's take a look at something else that is often pirated.... women's designer purses. Knock offs of them are often made and sold. This is illegal. And someone buying a legimate designer purse does not suddenly have the right to make knock offs of it and sell them. But do you know what they do have the right to do? Sell that purse if they no longer want it (on ebay or whereever). Why should that be any different with video games or movies? Why should entertainment media be a special exception?

          I've never been a fan of the concept of a "software license". IMO it's just a B.S. legal jargon technicality to try and make it wrong to do something with one kind of product that is frequently done with so many others on a constant basis. Either I should own my copy, or I am renting it. Don't give me this "license" crap where apparently I have some kind of long term access to the product but it's will kind of sort of maybe expire at some undetermined point in time, and that I can't resell. Software Licenses and ELUUs (End-License-User-Ultimatums.. and that's what they are, ultimatums... NOT agreements) are such a crock that it's not even funny.

          And if this very unfortunate trend is going to continue (with things getting more and more restricted over time, with physical media eventually being eliminated), then I would like to see some kind of gonvernment regulations put on Software Publishers, etc, that forces them to streamline their ELUUs so that they are simple to read and easy to understand (sort of like the enforcement put on credit card companies to make the statements easier to read and understand). No body reads those damn things because all of them are this huge wall of text, and in this day age of ipods, itunes, game console updates, updates for the games for the consoles, etc, they pop up left and right all of the time. It's absurd to expect people to read, understand, and remember everything in each and every one of them.

          Another concern that I have about this trend to try and stop the used gaming market is long-term access to the games. If I want to keep the system and the game long term, but the copy of the game that I own gets damaged, apparently aquiring another copy of the game won't work if it's somehow locked down or whatever. Whereas now if a game from an older system gets damaged, if I track down another copy on ebay, I'm all set. Between this and the move towards getting rid of physical media (which means once older content is no longer supported due to a system becoming obselete or whatever, it can't be redownloaded should a hard drive crash or whatever), the future is looking bleak for both people who trade in their games and those who like to hang onto them long term. Speaking as someone who still has many systems going back to Atari 2600, this bothers me, and it may push my away from the hobby. Get ready for system hacking and piracy to run rampant once the systems are no longer supported after moving on to the next generation. That's what's going to happen for people to simply maintain access to the content that they've legitimately paid for.

          And with this new system coming out, assuming that M$ follows suit with how they handled the transition from the original Xbox to the Xbox 360, get ready for the manufacturing of the 360 system and games to stop shortly after the launch of the new system. And maybe a year or two later, expect to no longer be able to redownload 360 content that you've previously paid for. This happened with the original Xbox. The drop of download content support wasn't as big of news as (IMO) it should have been, but largely because not as many people were downloading content as they are now on the current systems. I'm sure once this happens, people will be up at arms over it. Hopefully M$ will at least follow Sony's example and support the older system well into the life of the new one. Of course, that still only delays the inevtiable, because sooner or later even Sony drops the support on the older systems and their content. So, this isn't meant to be me praising Sony while bashing Microsoft. These trends unfortunately sooner or later will effect things across the board. Sony is just kind of the lesser of two evils in my eyes since they tend to support the older systems longer.

        Games like anything on DVD/CD/Blu-ray. don't detriorate and if they do have damage it is so blatantly visible that you can easily decide not to buy.

        A Car on the other hand has unknown wear and tear you can't be sure how the engines been treated whether the exhaust is about to rust through or a 100 other things that could go wrong.

        You then have to source new parts when stuff goes wrong often coming back from the company that produced the car.

        There is also the fact that in no other industry is there a 24 hour turn around. There is no car dealer that promotes buying a car and returning it in 24 hours so they can buy it off you for less than half what you paid and then resell it for 90-95% of market price.

        They all get a window of time where it is only new copies being sold generally 1-2 months. And you know what. Used game sales drop sharply after 1-2 months in my experience, because the retail price of the game has dropped to the price range that the customers want to pay. Coupled with the fact that the retailer is giving such a pitiful amount of money for the game since they probably can't sell it, that people are less likely to trade in anyways.

        When you can show me a product that is resold by the same retailer 10 times for only 1 unit. In the span of less than 30 days. Then tell me they aren't loosing money.

        These aren't the same as pirates these are people who ARE laying there money down for a product, It isn't the same as they want stuff for free, most of them just want it cheaper.

        And seeing as there is no difference between a new copy and a used copy(ignoring the project 10 dollar and all that shit that has come to combat it). Saving 5-10 dollars will almost always be the sane response of any consumer. Especially if your only going to trade it back in 2 days anyways.

          And then there's my second argument, one I've stated many times; If developers are so sick of me trading my games in, then maybe they have to start bringing out some games that I want to keep. If games these days actually had some more bloody replayability instead of six-hour campaigns and repetitive multiplayer, then I might feel like I want to hang on to it. If I don't feel like I've gotten my money's worth I have every right to take it back to the shops.

          "When you can show me a product that is resold by the same retailer 10 times for only 1 unit. In the span of less than 30 days. Then tell me they aren’t loosing money."

          I'm gonna quote Bullsh*t Man on this one; "Buying a second hand game doesn’t cost the developers any money. Sure it’s opportunity cost, but so what." At the end of the day, business works like this: You make a product, you give that product away, and in return, you receive money. When you buy a second-hand game, the developer of the game isn't losing anything as they've already sold off that copy of the game.

            " If games these days actually had some more bloody replayability instead of six-hour campaigns and repetitive multiplayer, then I might feel like I want to hang on to it."

            Well maybe if people stopped praising these cinemmersive asset tours, so rigidly constructed as to funnel the player from scripted set piece to scripted set piece, with little option to detour or experiment, we'd see more games implementing richer player agency and emergence.

            Longevity and replayability doesn't come from making the asset tour longer, it comes from presenting the player with options, providing scope for devising tactics, creating your own solution and forging your own path.

            There needs to me more emphasis on the ludonarrative, the story that unfolds due to the player's interactions with the gameworld and the way the gameworld reacts back, rather than all this emphasis on constrictive stories, and manipulative emotional engagement, cinematics and set pieces with only one solution and one way forward.

            Remember the day when we all use to marvel opponent AI and how it adapted to our actions? Now it's all about light effects, facial animations, stories, scripted action, and HOW DOES THIS MAKE ME FEEL?

            We need less Unchartereds, less Arkham Asylums, less Call of Duties.

            We need more STALKERs, more ARMAs, more Hitman Blood Moneys.

            We need less interactive movies and more VIDEO GAMES!.

              Who cares. I don't care how they do it I just want more value for money.

    The more guys like MS try to tell me what I can do with my own sh*t, the more I feel like heading over to Pirate Bay. Wait until they go full on digital download only, and monopolise the whole distribution process.

    Not surprising really.

    Though be interesting how they tackle the this copy wasn't taken online factor. Though maybe they don't have to do so. Maybe getting 75% of them is enough. Gamestop won't want to buy product's they might not be able to resell. And the online market could go one way or the other

    A way to sweeten the deal would be to offset the cost of the game. Seeing as the publisher will theoretically be making all the extra cash a retailer would from used games. So cut $20 off the price as standard (still could have sales/deals, etc) and it might work.

    The sad thing is just because they include this in the hardware, dont expect to see any other measures get less intrusive they will only get worse and tie into the hardware.

    I fully expect to see game discs get 'locked' to a single console, that then requires a constant connection to the a server. Publishers as of late do not deserve any benefit of the doubt what so ever. Just look at ME3, content you can only unlock if you spend hundreds on statue merch?

      THIS in particular bugs me - for the past two days I have been trying to play Battlefield 3's campaign (not sure why really but I figured I should try it out) and it won't boot up because "Connection to the EA Server was Lost" now really this is pathetic, my internet and Xbox Live all seem to run fine too, but not being able to play a single player game without connecting to a company website is the height of stupidity.

    I actually don't buy used games (well, almost never) so the core "problem" isn't really relevant to me.

    BUT the war against used games stops me loaning a game to a friend. That is really annoying.

    Also, the whole thing is based on a fallacy. There is always only ever one person playing a game. A secondhand game does not increase server costs because the original player isn't playing anymore.

      Let me preface by saying that the situation is different for multiplayer and single player experiences, but only slightly

      But each person will generally be enamoured with a game for a set amount of time. Let's assign an arbitrary value, say, 400 hours. You've payed $100, of which the developer gets maybe $40, for a game, and played for 400hours, so that's a rate of $0.10 per hour.
      Now, Another person could either buy the game themselves, getting the studio another $0.10/hour. Or, they could get the game second hand, plays for 400 hours, and the studio instead gets $0.05/h. If they then trade in and it goes back in, then the studio gets $0.03/h

      So, the fact that games will generally only hold peoples attention for a limited amount of time refutes your argument to a large degree.

    Its the companys fault people buy used games in the first place,If they didn't pump out special goty advanced ultimate editions of games like a month after launch then we wouldn't feel like its stupid to buy a game new on release.

    They are the ones who make buying a game new such a dumb idea, whats the point in buying borderlands 2 when it comes out when i know that a few weeks later the goty version will come out. I might aswell buy a used game or something while i wait.

      Your argument here is moronic no offence.

      Your claiming that because at some point in the next year there will be a complete edition with all the DLC.

      That buying the game new is stupid. Well guess what that also makes buying a used copy of a new game stupid as well. Because there is going to be a complete edition in 12 months time.

      Your complaining that the initial release is inferior, which makes new and used copies of it inferior.

    Seems like the only time Luke Plunkett writes a long thought out article is to defend a kotaku rumour...

      bahahah so ture.

    I find it a tad arrogant for anyone to support the total extinction of any kind of used goods market. Games neither stay in print or available online forever. Sometimes they're just scarce. Now you're supporting a flat out "No." when I want to buy a used, rare game over ebay, legally. (remember, the used game market is legitimate, NOT piracy. Some seem to have trouble telling the difference) I can't even lend my friends a game to try.

    For example: I like Ghostbusters. I didn't like the demo of Ghostbusters. Didn't buy the game. So, friend has Ghostbusters. Says it isn't bad. I borrow Ghostbusters.

    CAN'T EVEN TRY GHOSTBUSTERS.

    Understand how invasive this is?

      IMO second hand games sold via EB etc is the same as downloading it, burning then selling. The developer gets no money. 2nd hand games in retail is bullshit. Private sales are all good IMO, just not when your business relies on it.

    Modern day entertainment is starting to become impossibly restrictive maybe we should all learn an instrument, it worked back fifty years ago.

    Plus I didn't even realise second hand deals was that much of an issue since its mostly out of print games people normally get.

    What a crock of shit. No developer ever went bust because people buy 2nd hand games. Like no car maker ever went bust because people buy 2nd hand cars. Good games earn hundreds of millions of dollars but these guys are crying poor. Boo hoo, if yr business doesn't turn a profit then maybe yr in the wrong business, or you need to improve your product.

    It makes no difference to developers or publishers whether a game is pirated or resold. Either way that's still a little bit of money that they won't make from a sale.

    As a some time developer myself I'd recommend that if you don't feel compelled to support those who create your games, just go ahead and pirate it. At least then you won't be supporting this dubious system.

    sharing games with your mates is half the fun of them. Yet another reason to avoid xbox like the plauge

    I can tell you now that video game stores are going to absolutely take a blow to the head from this.
    This is not a good idea and it's no different from buying a used car.
    What needs to happen is a deal between retailers and developers where they sell preowned games and the devs still get a cut.

    This is not the way to go M$.

    Also, what happens when you want to take a game over to a friends house?... Just gonna leave it with that.

    This article's title should be, Why Luke is a Fucking Idiot.

      Agreed.

      Second-hand sales are the only thing keeping me from pirating.

    Seems to me alot of this is just a big whinge by developers and MS.

    If they were really serious about putting a dent in used games/piracy would be to go back to old practise, would work on any platform really as well.
    Let me re-introduce you to the concept of playable demos/shareware and limited multiplayer spawn copies. If you do these correctly you may find more people buying your games.

    Won't stop piracy or the used game market completely but you'll find it's impact on your profit karting to be not nearly as large as you allege it to be.

    Seriously, IF they implement this I honestly think it's a step backward.

    I buy games new all the time. I order games months before they come out, and get the special edition when possible. I don't mean to sound up myself but money is and never has been an issue when buying games, so I never have to buy my games pre-owned.

    But as I found out when my house was robbed last year, Games aren't produced forever. I had to build back my collection, game-by-game and as I had found out, many of them had been discontinued. The only way to get them? Pre-owned. And just the other day I wanted to play The Darkness, before the sequel came out. The only copy I could find was pre-owned.

    So publishers, I don't mind paying extra for brand new. I really don't. Just make sure you guys have the resources to produce games for the duration of the consoles lifetime. And don't say 'Oh they'll always have it digitally on their online store.'

    Fuck that, I'm a collector. I like my games stacked up on my shelf. Not stuck in a hard drive

      Totally agree! After being burgled I had to replace a lot of games and they just don't keep pumping them out, so I have a lot of pre-owned games. The only way I could get Ico in any form was pre-owned. Burnout 2 for the Gamecube was the same and even most recently Karaoke Revolution for the Wii - that could only be found as a second-hand game in the UK.

      I wish people would get off their high horses on this stuff and just think.

    imo the way to do this is to incentivise digital downloads over retail discs. I'm a heavy pc gamer and have no problem with steam, sure mates cant borrow the game, but when theres a sale we get a 4 pack of borderlands for $20 off steam and each get a copy. The dev gets money, I get cheap games, no lost money from used. Retail isnt going away for a while, but if the pubs and ms go, at launch, digital copy is $40, retail is $60, id buy the digital copy on day one. Problem is ms and every pub other than valve dont think like this, and instead cod3 is still $30 for a digital copy on xbl, when it should be much less.

    The reason I buy used games is because its a game ive never been too fussed about buying said game new, so i feel like giving it a try. Without used games I simply wouldn't try these games, so the developer is not losing money from me, just having me try a game I previously wouldn't. I may even buy the sequel if I like it!

    What about hiring??? I hire a crap load of games that I know I'd like to try before buy or it's if it's reviewed as a short campaign with no worth while multiplayer. I recently hired and played through Shadows of the Damned and Goldeneye Reloaded. Both easily worth the $10 I paid for the 3 days (or even the under $30 price for ozgamer.com) but seriously, if the price of gaming doesn't take a drop or even match the US new release price of $60, this is a idea that is NOT going to promote gaming and make it less accessible to people will lower incomes. Think of the children and the Uni studnets!

    Remember publishers/developers, you may be selling games to make yourselves more money... But hardly any of your consumers are buying them for that purpose.

    if this follows through im dropping console gaming all together and sticking to pc gaming

    i was raised as a pc gamer so this would just give me more reason to avoid consoles even more

    dont get me wrong i love my console games but this is just stupid, its like asking me to pay out some of the money to toyota when i sold my car the other day then pay out some money to daihatsu for when i bought my new car.

    I honestly don't think this will follow through and i hope that this is just some kind of stupid publicity BS. But hopefully some game devs and marketers for microsoft and sony will read these comments and realise that if you want to piss people off then just tell them that cod is the best game ever created ever

    So how does this work for me? I own 2 XBOXs, one for both entertainment rooms and between my wife and I plus our 2 kids, we have 4 gamertags.

    Do I have to buy a game twice? Or even 4 times?

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now