ButtonCombo: "The topic of used games is something that will never die down. For the most part it’s generally frowned upon amongst gamers, but I support used games and will continue to do so for as long as I can."
I could not agree more. It amazes me how some gamers side with publishers, they are like sheep- Just accept whatever is thrown at them.
hey can we use a different term other than sheep? I've got a predetermined idea of sheep and aggies...it's something I'm working on forgetting (bonus points to those who understand the joke). No seriously though, stop overusing the word...make them goats or something. I see both sides of the debate here and quite frankly I don't give a crap as I can afford whatever games I choose or choose not to buy. If I can't afford it, I don't buy them plus the online pass is kinda making this choice for us which is whatever.
Leave the goats out of it!
Sheep? I accept the developers' and publishers' justification for online passes and fighting back against the used market. Their business is about content, not physical products. They are entitled to the profits from the sale of that content. When it comes to piracy, everyone (unless you're a pirate) seems to be in agreement that only those that paid the publisher for it should have a copy. Why does that not apply to copies of the game distributed on physical media? That's what really gets me. Some people have expectations from games on disc, yet those same expectations aren't there for games delivered via digital distribution. It doesn't make sense to have two different standards when the only difference is the distribution method. Both are just a means to get the game to you. If people keep making the argument that everything on the disc is theirs to do what they want with, what's to stop publishers from eliminating the disc entirely? Whether or not it's today, a year from now, or ten years from now, digital distribution will become a viable option. I love having a physical copy. I have a huge collection of games. I value the benefits of a physical copy. But I realize it's not something developers and publishers have to offer forever in order to survive. I'd rather take a bit of a hit now, and deal with online passes, or get a little less on trade-in so content creators get their share, rather than see publishers cut out physical media all together, because the expectations of gamers based on ownership of a disc conflicts with the content creator's intention to SELL THE CONTENT to the consumer that buys the disc, and not to SELL THE DISC with the content on it. Call me a sheep if it makes you feel better. I'm sure plenty here will. I'll get plenty of disagrees too, since defending "evil," "greedy" publishers and developers who "already make enough money" seems to be a futile effort on this site, but when publishers get even more aggressive to ensure they get a cut from every sale of their content, don't blame me. Do I like online passes? No. Do I like cheaper prices that come with used games? Yes. But one of these days, physical media won't be a necessity for publishers. It will be a luxury for gamers. I for one don't want to see that luxury taken away because gamers refuse to meet content creators half way when it comes to who owns what when the content is delivered on disc.
I definitely agree with some of your points, yet what i dont like is that the online pass is not a countermeasure for used sales. it might be dropping the percentage a bit, but its not doing anything. its just another way to make profit basically like locking disc content and selling it as dlc. truth is any publisher who is using the pass model in single player, offline areas are destroying gaming more than the pass itself. forget longevity as that is basically going out the window. i know, a lot of gamers this gen could care less, but it really bothers me that 10 or 15 years from now youll go to boot up a game and you'll be missing content. unless your still on the same system and can activate that pass. think if you went to boot up a ps1 or ps2 game and could only play certain parts because you were missing content. its a terrible idea to even include such a system at all. if they wanted to combat the used market though they could go digital, like you said. or they could offer the codes as 1 time keys similar to pc and tie it to that particular disc. i mean some people dont even play online, such as resistance 3, so they can still buy a cheap used copy and be unaffected. its not really even about the used market. its just a nice amount of pocket change at the end of the quarter for those who want to buy a pass.
The online pass isn't "fighting back against used game sales" so much as "we saw an opportunity to make more money, so we took it." That's the way business works. You see an area where you can potentially make money, you figure out how to tap it, and you go for it.
@knifefight While I agree with, I don't think the intent is quite as simple as that. I think it's more of an alternative way to make money that's lost due to used sales. If it was just about making more money, a publisher could just as easily charge for online whether you buy new or used and throw in all DLC for free as a way to justify it. I think in the case of online passes, it's less about just making more money, and more about minimizing the lost revenue associated with used game sales.
ive been saying it for a while now, the logical answer is gamestop refuses to pay a % so the cost is being passed on to the consumer.
But is it really a cost if you buy new? No. So if you dont want to get hit with this so called extra "Fee" buy new. Its that simple. This wouldnt exist if the used games market didnt exist and it wasnt such a HUGH on. Developers and Publishers loose MILLIONS... if not more every year because of this industry. And besides, if you love certain games and developers so much, why not just buy the game new, support the developer, and enjoy their new games when they release because you supported them in the first place?
I would rather wait for a game to go down in price (a sale or price drop) than buy a game used in the first month just to save $5. If I need a game that bad, I buy it new.
Exactly how i feel. I have a huge backlog so if i want a game but don't think it's worth the price it's currently at, i've got other games to play till i get a good deal.
As new game consumer, we need the Used Gamer/Renters not to be charged for online passes. Because most of the people in multiplayers either bought used or rented. And with the online passes the rate of ghost lobbies just skyrocketed. My friend who has bought R3 said that full lobbies are getting rare. And I was in a few BF3 SDM less than half full, and thats a 2 week old game. So for all those people that think this doesn't bother them because they buy new, Let's see how un-bothered they are when they buy a new game and is greeted with ghost lobbies and sell the game at an even lesser price. Guess who loses money?? Not the Devs. because you gave them their $60 off top....It's you!!
That's a very good point. I always argue from the perspective that publishers- not usually the developers- use online passes to make money off a copy of a game they already got paid for. For example, you buy the game, stop playing, and three months later start playing. You won't be charged "server costs" for this game because whatever money they needed came out of that original sale. So how can anyone say or agree that this is a valid excuse if, three months after buying it, you sell your game to someone else who then plays it. You're right, though. Online populations will drop because of this. I have zero intention for paying for an online pass if I buy a game used. I don't want to buy it new, either, because quality is no longer assured, and returning a new game is impossible.
1. Resistance 3: not too many people bought that game in the first place. Add in the PSN Pass and that means the only people who are online are those that bought new or bought the Pass. 2. Battlefield 3: I've been playing since Day 1 and every server fills up fast. I think the issue you're having is everyone plays Conquest and/or Rush. I don't know anyone who ever plays Deathmatch. As for passes, publishers need to find a way to make people want to buy new instead of used or renting. I like the way DICE has you put in a code for Battlefield and all new maps are free. Or something like Rockstar's Pass for LA Noire, only free. If not, the next move to eliminate used games is to go completely digital. No more used sales period. The plus side would be games would get cheaper. But I have a feeling that a lot of people wouldn't like the end of physical media as we know it..
Two quick points, if you eliminated the used game market there is no reason whatsoever for games to go down in pricing. I would actually expect them to go up. No competition means they can charge whatever the f they want. And two i downloaded DC Universe online yesterday, i have a good dl speed of 15mbps it took 4.5 hours to download a 17gb game. Imagine donwloading at 20gb game on launch day with millions of people downloading at the same time, it could take a week or longer to get games. Digital may be the future but its still YEARS away!
In theory, games would go down in price because of the elimination of shipping and retailer portions of the $60 MSRP. It's a theory because yes, a company might get greedy but the competition between platforms may keep prices at a lower level. So people will download their stuff from whoever provides the best offer. Also downloadable full games would be smaller because of localization (most games now are less than 10 gigs though there are exceptions). MMOs are always going to be bigger but that hasn't stopped Warcraft. I think the next generation is going to see a bigger push toward going completely digital as companies are realizing how much money they can keep for themselves. Retailers aren't going to be completely out of the loop just yet but social and mobile games prove there is a lot of money to be made.
"The topic of used games is something that will never die down. For the most part it’s generally frowned upon amongst gamers" This whole thing just caught fire after some dumb Penny Arcade article anyway. -_-
ah yes, i remember that article. the "used games are equal to piracy" debate. which they are clearly not.
Thats funny, being a version of the game devs original made a profit off. Is the same as downloading game and them reciving nothing at all as there has not even been a sale lol, greedy bastards
exactly. if every single gamer pirated, the game industry would crash. there would be no exchange of money. buying used and pirating are 2 completely different things.
The money that is exchanging hands isn't going to the people who made the game when you buy used. It props up places like GameStop. I don't think used games are piracy but it keeps profits from going to the developers and publishers thus keeping other games from being made. The reality is that developers go under, games get cancelled, and properties get shelved because people want to save a few bucks on a new game right now. If a game needs to sell 1 million copies to be profitable, the only sales that count are the ones sold at retail. With used sales factored in, they may hit that million but there is no way to account for that. Developers know how many copies are sold and how many people are playing (at least in the case of online multiplayer). When those number don't match or even come close, I'm sure they are not pleased.
@cyclonus007 You are completely right. When purchasing used youre supporting the brick and mortar stores and not the devs themselves. Yet, blame is put on consumers for not buying enough copies and supporting them enough. Maybe we should blame some of the publishers for not supporting the consumer enough. Maybe things should be changed on the side of the publishers such as getting a better pricing model in place. Or maybe not dlc scamming every release to so that people want to buy and hold onto the game. Its not just those like myself who purchase used. There is an obvious issue with the market itself as returned/used copies are available in plentiful supply. Its obvious so many people are returning their games for various reasons.
Used books are not a sin in the world. You're paying for content that happens to be on a physical medium, in book format. Used CDs are not a sin. Used DVDs are not a sin. Used houses are not a sin. Used cars are not a sin. That's a philosophical argument. A practical argument, alluded to in the article: By buying some games used and selling games back to the used market, Johnny Gamer now has the funds to purchase new games where he never would have had those funds before. The publisher wins and the consumer wins. The truth is that the reason why this has cropped up recently is that we have a world-wide bad economy and the consumer is the one being blamed for it. "Oh, if only you purchased more we wouldn't be in this financial crisis." Bullshit. The real reason is that a wide variety of people in a wide variety of industries (banking,housing, etc..) mismanaged their money. This anti-used game movement is due to consumers being duped into thinking that they "owe" manufacturer's something. What consumers really owe manufacturers is helping to set the price with their purchasing habits and games are too darn expensive for what they're worth. The publishers know it and they don't want to admit but they don't HAVE TO admit it, because gamers have some of the least self control of all the people in the world. We CREATED the high prices by not being able to stop ourselves from buying. So, we are at fault, but for a totally different reason that what businesses are pushing.
Yep. I still have not yet heard an intelligent defense to "what about books, music, and movies?" from gamers that have this strong stance on used game sales. But I guess those didn't have some comic artist drawing up stupid comic that depicted used DVD purchasers in the same light as torrent downloaders.
* DVDs are not released when the movie is released. Usually its about a 6 month wait. * Hardcover books are released at least a year before softcovers, and are generally not traded in for a significant amount of time. * Houses and cars require significant maintenance expenses, taxes, and are valued largely by their used condition and location. They are not something you can experience in 10 hours and then resell at your leisure on a competitive market -- this isn't even a valid comparison. * Used gamers do not save their paltry trade-ins to buy new. They buy used for a reason. They perpetuate the USED market, not the new at all. Used game retailers should be footing the bill for including an online pass with a used copy. At the outrageous rate they overprice games at relative to the meek trade-in costs, they are definitely the part of the sales pipeline that can afford to lose some of the cream they are skimming from the other two parties (the buyer and the publisher). Used games are great. Used game retailers are giving everyone else the shaft, though.
I have no problem with your comments on Used game retailers. So how is this the consumer's fault? How am I responsible for their business decisions? The fact is that as a consumer I'm going to get the game at the bet price I can. Why am I saw NAUGHTY for wanting that? What is different about ones and zeros that suddenly makes the Used market BAD? I fail to see: 1) Why the release time of a DVD matters for the Used market? How does having to wait make that acceptable but games aren't acceptable? Are you saying that since a game can be traded in quickly that it cuts into the new sales? Dude, I know people that buy CDs and books, listen to them/read them in a few days, and then trade them in. Should we be crucifying these people? 2) What difference does it make if a hardcover, or any book for that matter, isn't traded in for a significant amount of time? Not cutting into new sales? Are you also protesting the digital book market cutting into paperback sales? Because the argument should be the same. Or do you only want a scapegoat for things that YOU care about? 3) Ok, if the fact that Used auto and home sales haven't killed their markets doesn't do it for you, let's go CDs then. I can experience a CD in less than an hour and then trade it in the next day. This was true of records in the 70s and cassettes in the 1980s. Time of consumption does not drive markets. Purchasing decisions do. As soon as somebody has bought a new game, the publisher gets their money. You're grasping at straws right now. What I would prefer is if the Anti-Used crowd simply had the balls to admit that they're position doesn't make sense.
Like a lot of people, I can understand both sides of the issue. Some people want to save money; while publishers feels that every copy should net them some money (even if that copy was already payed for by someone else). It is an argument that seems to be much more heated then back in the 90's or 00's. As for me, if I buy a used game; its much older and many times for systems that aren't on the market anymore (like the PSX or the gamecube) and thus those titles are not in the new game racks. When I buy new, it's after a significant price drop (usually around $20-$30). To those who have the patience, wait a year or so and you'll get a much better savings (unless its a call of duty game, then you'll be waiting for 3 years or so) and you'll have the fact that you gave the money directly to the publishers to make you feel better and help you sleep at night.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.