Top
1000°

GTA 5 Publisher: "if Microsoft is Taxing Used Games, We Should Get Paid Too"

Take-Two Interactive CEO Strass Zelnick doesn't think it necessary to "punish" consumers for purchasing second-hand games, arguing that "pushing up quality" and delivering robust DLC is a more effective way of persuading people to keep hold of the disc. That said, he's bang up for a share of Microsoft's rumoured Xbox One "pre-owned fee", assuming the scheme actually exists.

The story is too old to be commented.
NYC_Gamer1096d ago

"He said the company "somewhat hopeful" that the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 will allow Take-Two to participate in used game sales, though he did not provide any further details."

T2 wants a slice of that used game money

Prcko1096d ago

yeah
it was hard to notice that lol

Sono4211095d ago BadLanguageShow
wampdog291095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

@Sono421

Yeah.... but I have a feeling you'll only be able to buy used consoles through Microsoft directly....

kingmushroom1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

@sono don't buy the console that's a bigger Fu*k you to M$

stage881095d ago

F you MS for trying to set this precedent. You're getting none of my money.

KillerPwned1095d ago

Well if you buy the console at all you can buy it used off of someone.

UnHoly_One1095d ago

@Sono

I hope you go to prison.

People like you are a drain on society.

I'm sorry that a company like MS isn't catering their product explicitly to your tastes, but you need to realize that you can't always get what you want, and just because they aren't offering something just for you doesn't give you the right to steal from them in order to exact your revenge.

Listen, we get it. Some of you guys are crazy about the whole used games thing. That's fine, but can't we just hold back until E3 when we actually find out for sure what they are doing in that regard?

I mean it's all just rumors at this point and everyone is flying off the handle as if its the end of gaming as we know it. Listen, even if MS and Sony both completely block used games, I think things will be fine. There is no used PC games market, no loaning games to friends, and it is just FINE.

So in closing. Just effing RELAX people.

waltercross1095d ago

@ UnHoly_one

Usually I don't use this word but, are you a Tool?
Are you the kind of person that just Blindly accepts and does not Question anything?

And Quit saying it's all Just Rumors, Not all of it is. Kinect required?, Internet Required? Now Used game fee? We know thats not a Rumor, You need to Install the FULL Game and register it. So most likely there will be some kind of fee(It's Logical). All they had to do is require the Disc to play like usual but Instead they do this.

husomc1095d ago

@Sono421 you should just wait for the Xbox1 emulator that will definitely pop up in the near future

indysurfn1095d ago

@unholyone I will answer the question for you. Yes you ARE a tool! How is what the PRESIDENT ended up saying during the reveal not officially make it NOT a rumor! Just listened to the press conference. He said FEE! Not a rumor! All he didnt say was who would pay it the seller or the buyer. But he did say fee. And he did say every 24 hours or so. So how is that a rumor? Plus he pointed out that the TV part of it would require internet also. Stop imbarrasing me! I was a xbox fan but when I saw this it stopped being a two year rumor and started being a company attemp to punk me! Stop being blingly loyal to a company that is trying to CLOWN YOU!

Pro Racer1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

I've supported the Xbox and Xbox 360 for as long as I can remember, but the Xbox One is not taking next-gen console gaming in the right direction.

I should have the right to sell anything I own to whomever I wish, for however much I so desire. Restricting used game sales to "authorized retailers" does not support consumer freedom. No longer will you be able to borrow a game from a friend, pass on games you no longer play to friends and family, or resell a disappointing new game release via local sale.

Not happy with the game you bought? Your only options are to keep it, or trade it in for half of what you paid or less. Either way, you lose and Microsoft wins.

Obtoose1095d ago

People, wake the **** up! Microsoft isn't setting the DRM/used games fee precedent. We've been dealing with it for years already, just in slightly different forms. Mobile gaming, digital downloading, Steam, Uplay, iOS/tablet gaming; can you trade in any of those games, can you? You can let your friend try out the game on your console, but if they want it they have to go buy it, right? It's exactly the same thing!

Maybe instead of complaining, you should be kicking yourself in the butt for not fighting against this years ago, when it really started.

UnHoly_One1094d ago (Edited 1094d ago )

I should really just give up trying to talk sense into the people on this website.

If you guys have really followed this all so closely to know what they have and haven't said about fees, you should have also caught the part where they retracted some of the comments and said that they HAD NO OFFICIAL WORD ON HOW IT WAS GOING TO WORK AT THIS POINT.

So yes, I know you Sony Fanbabies want to spread everything negative thing about the Xbox as gospel, but that just isn't how it is in this case.

Deny it all you want. I obviously can't change your mind, but the truth is out there if you actually make an effort to look for it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites...

“The ability to trade in and resell games is important to gamers and to Xbox,” the company said. “Xbox One is designed to support the trade in and resale of games. Reports about our policies for trade in and resale are inaccurate and incomplete. We will disclose more information in the near future.”

Now, am I trying to say they will have no fee or that you can loan your games to anyone??

No of course not.

You know why I not saying that? Because just like all of you guys, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO UNTIL THEY OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCE IT.

You guys might all be totally correct, I'm just trying to say that maybe you should wait until it's 100% confirmed before you all jump on the "I hate Xbox" bandwagon.

Oh, and don't forget that Sony said they were leaving stuff like this up to the publishers. Which could very well mean that we'll all be dealing with it on both consoles.

I don't know what else to say to get it through to you guys. You are all so set on the caveman mentality of "Sony Good, MS Bad", that you won't actually read the facts and formulate an opinion for yourself. You just read other mindless comments and agree with them.

It's ridiculous, it's embarrassing, and it's a real goddamned shame.

Pro Racer1094d ago

@UnHoly_One

I for one, am not of the opinion that Sony is good and MS is bad. Despite what both companies may say on Twitter or otherwise, I believe neither one would venture into such a restrictive DRM policy alone. Neither have yet announced anything concrete, and both have attempted to appeal to the public by stating that "we hear you" and "the ability to trade in and resell games is important to us."

And as you said, they have yet to reveal the exact details of their used games policies, so anything can happen, and we may all end up being pleasantly surprised. However in my opinion, the recent negative backlash can do nothing but reinforce just how important used games truly are to us, hopefully convincing MS and Sony to do what is in the best interest of the gamers.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 1094d ago
-Mika-1096d ago (Edited 1096d ago )

And they should get it. There no reason for them not to get it.

@ Majin And Yi

That sound like a horrible idea. You do know creating DLC cost extra money. Than you want them to give it away for free. Come on, that silly. Now I do agree with dlc being a key for users to not selling that game.

Games like RE5 did dlc great. Mercenaries reunion and the extra scenarios were really well done. RE6 on the other hand was horrible. Timed DLC and horrible DLC game modes that were just unnecessary. Developers need to produce more important DLC that add new characters or expand the story and release them 2-4 weeks after the game launch. That would allow more people to buy the $10 dlc and hold onto their game.

001096d ago (Edited 1096d ago )

so when you sell all your old stuff do you send checks out to the original maker?

what's so damn special about the game industry that they get to be payed twice for selling one product.

Boody-Bandit1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

*APLAUSE APLAUSE*
ENCORE!
ENCORE!

animegamingnerd1095d ago

i wish you could rate people down enough so that they only have 0 bubbles

rainslacker1095d ago

The consumer should never even have to consider it until these publishers can come up with an answer to that question.

Well said 00.

nosferatuzodd1095d ago

Hey 00 Zodd the immortal approve youre
Comment here take some bubbles well said

dragonyght1095d ago

@00
"so when you sell all your old stuff do you send checks out to the original maker?"

i don't know why you get so many agree and well said bubble when when what you said make zero sense, i mean im pretty sure that when you sell your games to gamestop for example no body is getting pay except for you, this have nothing to do second used game.

scofios1095d ago

@00

Well said.
i take my hat off.

Boody-Bandit1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

Dragonyght

Edit
Never mind.
After reading it a few times I think I understand where you're coming from. I don't agree. But at least now I think I understand.
*heads spinning*

Enemy1095d ago

-Mikey- owned yet again, this time by brutally by 00. Next in line?

waltercross1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

@ -Mika-

DLC Is optional.

Would you rather pay for the DLC and be restricted to Lend your Disc out also? Even though It's yours? Screw that. People like Options, when a DLC Comes out for a game I don't HAVE to buy it.

@ dragonyght

What if I don't want to Trade in my awesome game? What if I want to lend it to my buddy? They get paid twice?, 3 times? 4 times? Yes if you Trade it in to the store you get paid but Lending it is a no no. Thats the biggest gripe.

waltercross1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

double post

grimmweisse1095d ago

I would hardly say owned! Mika does have a point, even if it's not a popular point. Game development is becoming increasingly expensive.

On a recent TB Content patch he brought up a similar point, and he knows it's an unpopular view with a vocal majority. If you look at other forms of entertainment they have multiple revenue streams where videos games have one. The used market is hurting the developers. Why do you think developers are not taking risks with new ideas? Why do think some DLC practices being abused. Because they need to play it safe because the risk of failure is too high. They are in a Business, no money no games!

The pc market is a prime example of how you don't need a used games market. Prices on steam, sale or non-sale items are extremely reasonable and sometimes absurdly cheap. Although my faith in the steam platform is far higher than XBL or PSN. I mean £59.99 for Fuse on PSN!

I think will all these issues regarding used games and revenues it will take a company with massive balls to try and regulate it...and piss off consumers along the way. Seems like MS is doing that. What I want to hear now what all the major developers think about it?

DragonKnight1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

@dragonyght: Please don't disgrace the name with such comments.

The point that 00 was making is that only in the gaming industry does anyone ask for multiple profits off of one product. When you sell your car, the car manufacturer doesn't get, nor expects, a cut of that money. Why should publishers get money from the same copy of a game when no other industry does? Plus, they've done literally nothing to deserve that extra profit.

@grimweisse: TB's arguments have their own holes. For example, he brought up that devs have to pay for servers and that the sales of new games pay for those servers. That's a bad argument to make because a game's online component is significantly longer than that game's shelf life. How do devs pay for servers for games that have stopped selling new copies because people have moved on to other games?

Look at Demon's Souls. The sales for that game have DEFINITELY stopped yet the servers are still up and will continue to be up indefinitely. Is Atlus paying for the servers with new sales of Demon's Souls? No, they aren't.

The PC market is an example of an audience that gave up and accept the status quo due to convenience. First sale doctrine extends to digital property as well, but to enforce it would require the court system and people don't want the hassle.

grimmweisse1095d ago

@DragonKnight, sure I agree with the server issues, games with online components will always have that risk. And yes, TB's views are his own and I don’t take it as gospel, but he does bring interesting views even if someone cannot agree with them.

Especially with companies like Game encouraging customers to buy a used copy over a new copy of game. Why? Because Game gets to keep 100% of the used game sale. Another company making profit off another company's hard work without any recompense is highly immoral. So when game or gamestop saying their main business stream is the used games market, that means developers are keeping them alive, without gamestop or game giving anything back. There’s a massive problem right there.

This could all easily of been avoided if a certain percentage of the used game sales were given back to developers. But what we have now is a situation where DRM issues with used games are floating around wildly.

Eyeco1095d ago

RE5 DLC sucked a$$ especially the "competitive" multiplayer

DOMination-1095d ago

The reason why the gaming industry is so special is that it specifically says in the eula that you don't actually own the game. The rules are therefore somewhat different to when you buy eg. a sofa.

I don't agree, I just believe thats the reason

kenshiro1001095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

A blind consumer. I expected nothing less from you Mika.

marcolinhoo1095d ago

I disagreee with the disagree:)

I think what he's saying is:
IF (or WHEN) a company (M$) make you pay for used games, THEN,
there's no reason why those money should stay in the company (always M$) hands entirely.
It's more logical that those money goes to the devs. Yes in this case they get paid twice.
But better than to pay a company wich did nothing regard the game sold (guess who? M$).
So the point is: the money should go to developers and not to microsoft and the official resellers. They don't deserves and can't ask for the cash.
At least that's how i red it...
anyway:
"what's so damn special about the game industry that they get to be payed twice for selling one product."
Nothing at all! I do think the fee is utterly nonsense and anti-consumer and nobody should buy the xbone with this policy!

Seafort1095d ago

@grimmweisse "The PC market is an example of an audience that gave up and accept the status quo due to convenience. First sale doctrine extends to digital property as well, but to enforce it would require the court system and people don't want the hassle."

PC gamers didn't give up we had to change tact and steam was one of the game companies that stuck by us and made the platform what it is today. If it wasn't for steam most of the publishers and console devs would have left the PC platform behind.

Digital distribution will be the future of consoles too the platform holders just aren't ready for it yet. Too many constraints and boundaries to overcome before its purely digital for consoles.

I'm also glad for the indie scene on PC. They've been amazing the last 2-3 years and a lot of the thanks goes to steam once again accepting them onto their store.

Now kickstarter is taking off and PC gamers have a chance to support the devs we want to support and say no to the games we don't need or want.

Now when do you think the console gamer will have a say in what games are supported or not? Not in this lifetime that's for sure :)

indysurfn1092d ago

@00 was 007 already taken? Nice name! Anyway I have NEVER EVER saw 131 agrees to 4 disagrees in my life! LOL that has got to be a record! Oh wait make that 132 agrees as soon as I get done with this comment!

+ Show (18) more repliesLast reply 1092d ago
hazardman1096d ago

I read an article last week on develop online and it stated that most profits from used games will go to publishers and the smaller portion going to retailers.

Maddens Raiders1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

Sono - you've got the right attitude. It's called a gamer's spirit.

A little off topic:
=====================
Has there ever been a gamer's "Bill of Rights" written lol... just so that we don't all get fleeced for paying greedy ass people over and over for something that already sold at MSRP the FIRST time, just for the sake of more yacht parties, coke, and hookers????

edit:/ Oh Snap! http://www.gamersbillofrigh...

I bet MSFT saw this 4 years ago and said hurry and get the xbone out before some Congressman sees this mock bill and tries to soapbox with it! .. wow dat 8-10 are spot on....

Seafort1095d ago

That Gamers Bill of Rights only applied to the PC gamer as Stardock wrote it for their fans and PC gamers alike :)

But it'll probably apply to console gamers now too.

It's worth nothing till the publishers and developers actually sign up to it though.

indysurfn1095d ago

Let me get this straight. Microsoft is saying we need to solve the used game 'problem' because the publisher/developer is not getting any of the money from the used game market. Thats there stance. Then they come up with a way to charge you for selling your OWN PROperty, and they are STILL not giving the money to the publisher? That is what it sounds like from this article. So we would still have them not getting a cent, and people not having that much to buy new games with(because the fee took some). But Microsoft under this senario is the only one getting paid!

killerbotmax1095d ago

So you figured out how the console market works... Yes, the benefit is for Sony/nint/ms, not the creative industries or the consumers.

TheOrion1095d ago

Actually from the article that still seems like an unknown.

"Microsoft has refused to discuss any of this, naturally, stating that its pre-owned policy is still being finalised."

If the publishers are not satisfied with an arrangement being put on them then the games can and will suffer.

Seraphim1095d ago

as far as I'm concerned if it ever happens the money should absolutely go to the developers. They are the ones losing the most from 2nd hand sales.

Bounkass1095d ago

It's always about the money...

Syntax-Error1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

A lot of Take Two's DLC are robust. Rockstar gives you your money's worth in DLC. Red Dead and GTA4 gave you a lot of bang for the buck.

And so we are here again. Like I said before that it doesn't make sense. Do you see Ford or Nissan wanting revenue for every used car sold?

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1092d ago
Majin-vegeta1096d ago

"Let's push up our quality, which you've seen in our Metacritic scores, and then let's make sure to give people DLC, often free, three or four weeks out; which is the time you're at risk for them trading in their game," he added. "If you can keep the game in consumer's hands for 8 weeks, you almost don't care anymore about used game sales because it's the first 8 weeks that really nail you."

This people usually trade in their games when they finish everything.Give us Free DLC and people would be less entinced to trade them in.

Yi-Long1096d ago

... for years now.

If you want to fight 2nd hand games, you will have to make sure that people who BUY your games, don't want to SELL their games 3 days later! And the way to do that, is indeed with stuff like free DLC.

It would also mean more people will be willing to buy those games on day 1 and for full price, because they'll know they'll be buying the complete experience, instead of the current situation, hwere you know you'll be nickel-and-dimed 3 seconds after launch.

grassyknoll1096d ago

Very true! CD Projekt & a few others already know this. Forcing people to keep your game just makes people not want to buy it. Making your game great & full of content also helps!

travelguy2k1095d ago

couldn't agree more, even gave you a bubble so you can spew more truth.

rainslacker1095d ago

I agree with the principle of what you're both saying, but it does lend itself to content being stripped from the game itself. Some companies are better about this than others and may actually not do that, but this gen has shown many publishers are more than willing to sell core game content at an additional cost.

I do like that the guy quoted though at least sees that you can combat the 2nd hand market through quality products instead of punishing the customer. This is one reason I like Rockstar in general.

kwyjibo1096d ago

Of course the publisher should get a cut if the platform holder does. I really doubt platform holders could enforce such as system if the publisher didn't buy into it.

sway_z1096d ago (Edited 1096d ago )

Fook this nickle 'n dime B$!!

MS have opened the flood gates with this stupid greedy policy...now everyone involved in development/publishing will want a slice of the pie!!

Lol...did MS and retailers really think they could have it all??

creeping judas1096d ago

Sorry, but that comment makes no sense. I doubt any business would turn their hands away from an additional revenue stream. Especially one as lucrative as what the used game market could be. Have you even seen a business turn away revenue?

And hasn't MS already confirmed, the revenue would be split between the publisher and MS??

sway_z1096d ago (Edited 1096d ago )

SORRY BUT NO...they (MS) have not confirmed splitting revenue with publishers/developers...all that MS have 'loosely' mentioned is retailers getting their share. If you're gonna challenge a statement/comment, please do some research...??

..And I don't know who's comment you think you have replied to, because not once did I say 'any business would turn away additional revenue stream'..

So it is you who makes nonsense and lacks basic reading abilities and understanding....hope you're not a divorce lawyer!

Your name really suits you.....try and pay attention to detail instead of trying conveniently placing words into someone's mouth.

creeping judas1096d ago

Perhaps you missed the question marks at the end of my statement, at no point was I challenging a statement, I was looking for clarification.

Also as per your initial comment, I initially read "now" as "not", hey my mistake I can admit it, but thanks for the rant over that.

rainslacker1095d ago

Why should MS get any of it? Unless it's their own 1st party game. Maybe a small fee for processing costs like they do now for digital content, but it should almost all go back to the publisher. Either that, or they could do the legal thing and not tell us what we can do with our property.

Sideras1095d ago

I actually though their whole idea was to sort of split the pie with the publishers, but I take this as MS wanting to eat the whole pie themselves which makes this even more unacceptable. Which make my chances of buying an Xbone drop from 0.1% to -99% or something.

ApolloTheBoss1096d ago (Edited 1096d ago )

Damn Microsoft. Soon all publishers start saying this crap. You ALREADY got money for the game the first time! People have a right to do whatever the hell they want with they're games. This should be illegal and hope somebody educates them on the First Sale Doctrine.

insomnium21095d ago

Yeah pretty much this. It's the devs job to keep people from selling their games 2 weeks in. Either the game is worth the FULL 60 bucks or then the game isn't worth it and the resale value is taken into consideration by the time of purchase.

With games that are NOT worth the full 60 the sales would PLUMMET without the resale value. Have you devs thought about that?