Sony joins EA and Ubisoft in considering limitations on used games

[-tkf-]

If anything people will be playing longer as the cost of entry decline would be pushed to a longer time frame.

I don´t get this part, what does price have to do with how long a play online. If i buy a game i play it online until i get bored. Buying a used game and then having to pay an extra fee in order to play online would make no difference, except the risk of less people playing it online

 

[Scott_Arm]

Some at THQ certainly seem to see no benefit in the used game market.

Regarding the new one-time online key in their new wrestling title, creative director for wrestling games Cory Ledesma had the following to say:

"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.


http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=261330


This is an absolutely stupid way of thinking, as if buyers are new game buyers or used game buyers and there's no one that buys a mix of the two.

 

[eastmen]

I don´t get this part, what does price have to do with how long a play online. If i buy a game i play it online until i get bored. Buying a used game and then having to pay an extra fee in order to play online would make no difference, except the risk of less people playing it online

Mosty because you have less avalible funds and aren't able to go to next game as quicky

 

[wco81]

What do you expect from the THQ guy?

He makes wrestling games.

 

[corduroygt]

Here's what the $10 online codes will do:

1. Due to the online code, Gamestop will have to sell the used game for $45, instead of $55.
2. This in turn, will force Gamestop to give less trade-in credit to the customer who's trading in that game.
3. This will make the customer less likely to trade in his copy, which he bought new.
4. This will make the customer less likely to buy the game new, since he knows he won't be able to get good money for it.
5. Thus, new game sales will decrease, possibly even more than the number of $10 online code purchases.

If they want to go this route, they should sell the game disk package for $50, and online codes, irregardless of whether the game disc was bought used or new, would be bought directly from the publisher's site and tied to a person's account. You don't violate first sale doctrine in that way, gamestop will have business as usual, since you're selling online portion as a service. You can even go further and make the online portion subscription based instead of 1-time unlock for extremely popular shooters like COD.

I'm sure I'm not the first person who came up with this idea, so no one's implementing it yet, it means the finances don't work out yet and online gaming is not as big as we would like to believe.

 

[patsu]

Some at THQ certainly seem to see no benefit in the used game market.

Regarding the new one-time online key in their new wrestling title, creative director for wrestling games Cory Ledesma had the following to say:

"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.


http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=261330


This is an absolutely stupid way of thinking, as if buyers are new game buyers or used game buyers and there's no one that buys a mix of the two.

He's saying he has 0 interest in providing online features to used game buyers -- probably because he doesn't get any $$$ from them directly.

It's different from seeing no benefits from the used game market. e.g., Used game buyers may have additional word of mouth effect. They may buy merchandizes. But all these may be more secondary compared to direct income.

He's a creative director. Get some business decision maker to answer the question. If the game companies don't value these users, they would have implemented the scheme overnight without hinting about it to test the waters.

 

[aselto]

Here's what the $10 online codes will do:

1. Due to the online code, Gamestop will have to sell the used game for $45, instead of $55.
2. This in turn, will force Gamestop to give less trade-in credit to the customer who's trading in that game.
3. This will make the customer less likely to trade in his copy, which he bought new.
4. This will make the customer less likely to buy the game new, since he knows he won't be able to get good money for it.
5. Thus, new game sales will decrease, possibly even more than the number of $10 online code purchases.

6. Since owners of used copies won't have access to online mode, the online community for the game will shrink even faster.
7. People who bought new copies for $60 will get discouraged by short life of multiplayer mode and will be less likely to buy next year's iteration.

Yes, this online pass thingy will do more harm then benefit when all's said and done

 

[NathansFortune]

Everyone is looking at this from the wrong angle. Game publishers want a way to differentiate their product from used games. It is not about killing off the used game market, but enticing gamers to buy new. Online codes could work, but more likely free launch DLC will be what does it. They just have to decide whether to make the DLC essential to the story or not. The former will help their cause but incur the wrath of gamers (like online codes) the latter will be too ineffective.

 

[corduroygt]

Everyone is looking at this from the wrong angle. Game publishers want a way to differentiate their product from used games. It is not about killing off the used game market, but enticing gamers to buy new. Online codes could work, but more likely free launch DLC will be what does it. They just have to decide whether to make the DLC essential to the story or not. The former will help their cause but incur the wrath of gamers (like online codes) the latter will be too ineffective.

Yes but they should do it in a way so they don't shaft their new buyers and lose them. For RPG's they could program in date based rare item frequency, where rare and unique items are much more common in the first few months than later. I'm talking about 100x more common for example.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes but they should do it in a way so they don't shaft their new buyers and lose them. For RPG's they could program in date based rare item frequency, where rare and unique items are much more common in the first few months than later. I'm talking about 100x more common for example.

That's getting too complex to communicate with the general population. What would you put on the box to expalin to new buyers the advantages they have over second hand buyers? Any 'added value' has to be no-nonsense, and an "includes free $10 online access code" type label satisfies that.

 

[specwarGP2]

That's getting too complex to communicate with the general population. What would you put on the box to expalin to new buyers the advantages they have over second hand buyers? Any 'added value' has to be no-nonsense, and an "includes free $10 online access code" type label satisfies that.

They could promote the added value content in whatever advertising material is used. After a while, gamers would have it ingrained that buying new = extra free stuff.

Medal of Honor is doing that with the limited edition. Whoever buys the game new with in a certain period of time will get access to a special weapon before everyone else.

 

[eastmen]

Here's what the $10 online codes will do:

1. Due to the online code, Gamestop will have to sell the used game for $45, instead of $55.
2. This in turn, will force Gamestop to give less trade-in credit to the customer who's trading in that game.
3. This will make the customer less likely to trade in his copy, which he bought new.
4. This will make the customer less likely to buy the game new, since he knows he won't be able to get good money for it.
5. Thus, new game sales will decrease, possibly even more than the number of $10 online code purchases

Don't agree at all because your only looking at a part time new gamer. What about the people who only buy used games. They exist and that is what this is targeting.

If they want to go this route, they should sell the game disk package for $50, and online codes, irregardless of whether the game disc was bought used or new, would be bought directly from the publisher's site and tied to a person's account. You don't violate first sale doctrine in that way, gamestop will have business as usual, since you're selling online portion as a service. You can even go further and make the online portion subscription based instead of 1-time unlock for extremely popular shooters like COD.

I'm sure I'm not the first person who came up with this idea, so no one's implementing it yet, it means the finances don't work out yet and online gaming is not as big as we would like to believe.

We don't really know if this violates first sale doctrine. We wil have to watch and see if any court cases pop up. I doubt big companys are doing thi without thier lawyers checking it out.

 

[eastmen]

They could promote the added value content in whatever advertising material is used. After a while, gamers would have it ingrained that buying new = extra free stuff.

Medal of Honor is doing that with the limited edition. Whoever buys the game new with in a certain period of time will get access to a special weapon before everyone else.

how about 1 multiplayer map but for a limited time the vip comes with 10 aditional maps which at a later date will be sold as dlc for $10.

How great would that be....... oh wait its the same thing. Gears of war 2 did this to an extent. You got additional maps with a code when you bought new.

 

[corduroygt]

Don't agree at all because your only looking at a part time new gamer. What about the people who only buy used games. They exist and that is what this is targeting.

Someone has to buy a new copy and trade it in for a used copy to exist. If less people buy new copies because of this online code business, will the lost revenue from those lost new copy sales be made up by used buyers purchasing $10 codes? Publishers don't seem to be so sure yet. Publishers don't care if some people only buy used games or part time or etc, they think about how much money they can make.

We don't really know if this violates first sale doctrine. We wil have to watch and see if any court cases pop up. I doubt big companys are doing thi without thier lawyers checking it out.

Selling 1-time online codes is nothing new, and it'd be just like WOW,XBL Gold, or PSN+ subscription codes, i.e. software as a service model.

 

[NathansFortune]

That's getting too complex to communicate with the general population. What would you put on the box to expalin to new buyers the advantages they have over second hand buyers? Any 'added value' has to be no-nonsense, and an "includes free $10 online access code" type label satisfies that.

Epic's was better - "Free game ending included!"

http://www.bingegamer.net/2008/epics-capps-make-game-endings-dlc/

 

[deathindustrial]

This is also an attack on game rentals I would think. Not sure how big of an issue that still is with the video rental market tanking but this could quickly lead to that market dying off completely.

I wonder what percentage of games sales correspond to rental outfits like Blockbuster or Rogers purchasing in bulk?

Cheers

 

[obonicus]

Here's what the $10 online codes will do:

1. Due to the online code, Gamestop will have to sell the used game for $45, instead of $55.
2. This in turn, will force Gamestop to give less trade-in credit to the customer who's trading in that game.
3. This will make the customer less likely to trade in his copy, which he bought new.
4. This will make the customer less likely to buy the game new, since he knows he won't be able to get good money for it.
5. Thus, new game sales will decrease, possibly even more than the number of $10 online code purchases.

If they want to go this route, they should sell the game disk package for $50, and online codes, irregardless of whether the game disc was bought used or new, would be bought directly from the publisher's site and tied to a person's account. You don't violate first sale doctrine in that way, gamestop will have business as usual, since you're selling online portion as a service. You can even go further and make the online portion subscription based instead of 1-time unlock for extremely popular shooters like COD.

I'm sure I'm not the first person who came up with this idea, so no one's implementing it yet, it means the finances don't work out yet and online gaming is not as big as we would like to believe.

They disagree with you, and are willing to take the gamble. If they're wrong, maybe the gaming market will collapse again, and I'll go back to spending my disposable income on tabletop games.

 

[NathansFortune]

Here's what the $10 online codes will do:

1. Due to the online code, Gamestop will have to sell the used game for $45, instead of $55.
2. This in turn, will force Gamestop to give less trade-in credit to the customer who's trading in that game.
3. This will make the customer less likely to trade in his copy, which he bought new.
4. This will make the customer less likely to buy the game new, since he knows he won't be able to get good money for it.
5. Thus, new game sales will decrease, possibly even more than the number of $10 online code purchases.

If they want to go this route, they should sell the game disk package for $50, and online codes, irregardless of whether the game disc was bought used or new, would be bought directly from the publisher's site and tied to a person's account. You don't violate first sale doctrine in that way, gamestop will have business as usual, since you're selling online portion as a service. You can even go further and make the online portion subscription based instead of 1-time unlock for extremely popular shooters like COD.

I'm sure I'm not the first person who came up with this idea, so no one's implementing it yet, it means the finances don't work out yet and online gaming is not as big as we would like to believe.

You need to read up on supply and demand economics. Points 2, 3 and 4 are incompatible. If the yield offered to the consumer is lower and it makes them less likely to trade it, it has the effect of decreasing the supply which will raise prices on used games in order to decrease demand at which point new games become price competitive. The only people who lose out from the $10 online code scenario is used game retailers, they will have to offer the same yields to consumers as they currently do, but sell it cheaper. The demand for games at low prices will always be there, if GameStop doesn't want to lose this market they will just have to take the hit.

Also, used game sales don't effect up front sales, just the tail. Any reductions in game sales will effect the tail end from which publishers benefit little anyway. The few games that have had a decent tail this gen are Uncharted and Bioshock. Everything else has been very front loaded.

A likely outcome is that a bigger emphasis will be put on publisher endorsed price reductions earlier and more often in smaller steps. So $60 to $50 two months after release, then to $40 6 months after release, then $30 when the sequel comes out. Publishers are as much to blame for the rise of used game sales as the peddlers.

 

[infinity4]

Think simple, less people will buy used games if they want to play online. More people will buy new copies now = more profit for companies.

And game prices do go down after few months (that's what I do anyway).

But what about single player only games? How will this work?

 

[wco81]

Madden 11 is for sale at $50 at Target this week.

Whatever the reason, their sales are not up to par and they're discounting early.