Treyarch: Pre-owned is a problem

"With multiplayer a key selling point for Black Ops, Treyarch community manager Josh Olin has told MCV that Activision and Treyarch would not be employing a similar system to that of THQ’s UFC Undisputed 2010 and EA’s recently announced Online Pass."

[dizzleK]

yet..... subscription inbound, mark my words.

[MightyMark427]

I agree, we should expect it sooner or later. Heh

[Conloles]

I wonder what Activi$ion's next tactic will be to rape consumers and blame it on second hand sales, another $10 price hike?

[ChozenWoan]

The Gaming Industry is doing the same thing the music industry did 10 years ago.

The music industry was thriving when Napster was at it's peak. Everyone was sharing music and then they would actually go out and buy it. This was due to Napster being a good way to find new bands/artists without having to drop $10-$20 bucks on a CD you might not like except that one song on the radio.

Then the music industry hammered Napster and file sharing and now hardly anyone goes out to buy music. Not because they don't want to support their favorite artists, but because they don't want to support the malicious music execs who prosecuted their fellow music lover.

Today, the gaming industry is trying to blame the decline in game sales on second hand sales, when the real problem is game prices. This gen we saw game prices jump from being $30/$40/$50 dollars per game depending on the title's ranking, to a system where it's $60 for all games... including the movie based games.?.

To get games at a reasonable price is why more people are turning to second hand games. And all of these schemes to gimp second hand games will only lead to less game sales, both first and second hand.

The first thing that will happen is gamers will get less for game trades due to a decline in demand due to the second hand games being gimped. The sad part is, gamers are already getting squat for their used games as it is. So in the end, this will have a greater negative impact on gamers than it will on game stores.

Secondly, many gamers will simply wait for first hand games to drop in price so they can still get the full game. This means less week one sales and thus more game studios not getting the necessary revenue they need and thus being forced to close. Which will have a dominoes effect on the gaming market causing a crash similar to (not the same but similar to) that of the 80s.

[villevalorox]

Its not a problem at all. Look at the used car market, or anything! Just about everything that is bought can and is sold 2nd hand after the manufacturer purchase. There is just not much they can do to stop it, and if they do do something stupid like rent or subscription then their sales will drop lower than what it would like it is now. Instead of punishing the consumer reward them to keep the game or buy it new for Christs sake, not punish them for buying it used. If they think it is a problem then Devs need to make it easy for the consumer to sell them back the game. I know it sucks to lose out on that money but every mass producer goes through it. GTFOI

[Cold 2000]

A pre-owned car has A LOT less value than a new car for obvious reasons.

A pre owned game has the EXACT same value as a new game for the simple reason that pre-owned or not its EXACTLY the same thing. Its not like a car where after 5 years the car isnt all that powerful, comfortable, reliable, safe etc etc.

A game just stays the way it is i.e in perfect working condition.

[HenryFord]

This is plain wrong: Cars loose value over time, games (in theory) don't.

And then think about Games like Modern Warfare 2: With no dedicated servers, you need to use the infrastructure which is already in place by the company selling the game. They have to keep the infrastructure in order to let the people play online, hence they need money. Everyone who buys the game in 2nd hand purchase, plays on the server provided by the company, but they arent making any money through it despite their raising capacity...

[Wh15ky]

"Its not like a car where after 5 years the car isnt all that powerful, comfortable, reliable, safe etc etc"

What are you on about?

"A game just stays the way it is i.e in perfect working condition."
Unless the disc is scratched/ damaged or the cover/ booklet is missing/ damaged.

Edit: @HenryFord
"Cars loose value over time, games (in theory) don't."
Games do lose value over time. One instance is when it's superceeded by it's sequel, COD4 can be bought new for around £20 these days where as MW2 is generally priced at over £40.

[SOAD]

I would argue that games can also lose value over time. Some multiplayer games lose their popularity over the course of a few months, so a gamer who purchases a game new can enjoy the multiplayer for as long as it is a popular game and then sell it and buy the next popular game.

It also works with single player games. A game that is seen as the pinnacle of graphics technology can lose that title after a few months. Although it's the same exact game, the way people feel about it changes over time. I know it's a minor think to complain about, but sometimes a game's value has to do with its popularity at a given moment.

Like right now, all anyone can talk about is Red Dead Redemption. But a few months from now, the next big thing is going to come along.

It works that way with cars. When the 2011 model of a certain car comes out, the 2010 model loses its charm, and thus the dealer lowers the price to adjust.

With used games it's kind of the same thing. When Gamestop wants to sell the used version of Red Dead Redemption for 50 bucks 6 months after its release, people are no longer willing to pay for it because it has lost it's salience.

[madpuppy]

"Everyone who buys the game in 2nd hand purchase, plays on the server provided by the company, but they arent making any money through it despite their raising capacity..."

It is impossible for used sales to raise capacity, Remember, a publisher is the only entity that produces the game legally. if a publisher sells 1 million copies of a game they have to provide server support for 1 million gamers. reselling 250,000 of that 1 million used WILL NEVER INCREASE SERVER CAPACITY, EVER! It is impossible, I don't know why people fall for this kind of garbage from the publishers. they just hate the idea of not making more money, at least that I understand.

ALSO,Cold2000, games DO drop in value, (value is relative to what people are willing to pay for something) Uncharted 1 is not selling for 60.00 anymore is it? Why?
Call of Duty 1-5 are all equal games that should still be selling for their full retail price to this day if we go by your logic.

[villevalorox]

It's not like it's a pirated copy of the game, if that person would have kept the game and was still playing it and not sold it, it still would only be 1 person on the server. It does not matter if it was the 2nd hand buyer or the original purchaser playing it, it would still cost them the same amount of money to support them.

[2EXS]

1 million ppl got the game new, they would keep it and not sell it only if the game is good and the online is also good, look at MW2... you can't not find it anywhere used, why, because of its online play.
they don't deserve to get pay again, they are not using more resources, they don't have to use more servers because if 1 mil ppl got it new and some of them sold it, there are still 1 mil ppl playing it. so no they don't use up more resources.

[HenryFord]

Well... obviously you never engaged in any marketing-strategies:
If you sell one game to one consumer, everything is allright. Now think of it: If I sell a game to a consumer, the probability that he is going to play this game ALL THE TIME and FOREVER, is near zero (except of those hardcore gamers, and of course hardcore games (like WoW or CS)).
So you give your product a Productlife Cycle, after which the game doesnt demand any more capacities due to the drop in play-sessions.
So for instance:
I buy a game, the publisher thinks it wont be played in 5 years or so and hence he will reduce the server amount avaiable for this game.

Now, if you sell your already purchased game, it is most probable that the purchaser will play again and hence will rise the capacities needed.
If they wouldn account for that, the price for a single copy of the game would rise up (which isnt understandable at all).

I totally agree with you, that this is no way to go, but you have to understand the lies marketing experts keep telling the devs of games.

@Every comment with "there is less value":
Price != Value .
You are right: For old(er) games, it happens very often that the prices drop after time or a new sucessor hit the tables. But that has nothing to do with value!
I can get the EXACT same content for PC Game XYZ by purchasing a 2nd-copy. So in fact: The value rises up, because the price is lower than before. But: The stuff you get for your money (which defines the value of a product) is exactly the same for a lower price.

A game which was declared as the holy grale of graphics doesnt loose value if a new game with better graphics comes along.

[madpuppy]

lets not split hairs here, the fact of the matter is in the real world of numbers the publisher does not lose. 1 million is 1 million sold and served. and as for "value" and "price" they tend to walk hand in hand.
The god of war collection sells for 30.00 "new" for the PS3. why didn't Sony sell the collection for 90.00 (45.00 for each game when they were new)
because the consumer wouldn't have seen the value in buying the collection at that price. because value is a perception and it walks hand in hand with price.

This is actually a slippery slope for the Dev and publisher, because if you are talking "market Strategies" you also have to take into consideration cause and effect of a chosen "strategy".
Will doing something as profound as having a used game buyer purchase the ability to go on line with a game that touts on line multiplayer
(essentially, double dipping. the last time I checked, something only the federal Government can legally do.)
and possibly alienate the customer thus possibly losing future sales.

All you need is one loud dedicated voice on the internet to create a PR nightmare and lost sales for a company.

[poindat]

Some nice debating guys, and I only have two simple things to say right now.

First, games DO devalue. Everything does. The moment you crack open that case, the game is automatically no longer worth what you paid for it. The more usage it gets and the more wear and tear it gets, the more it devalues, but TIME itself rather than condition is what acts on the value first and foremost. Even if that game is in perfect working condition, if you have opened it even just once, the value decreases. Of course, there are some exceptions with rarer games, but that is not a typical case.

Second, let's face it: If I'm buying a game used, then there is probably no way in hell that I was going to buy the thing at retail price. That's why I'm buying it used. So why are developers supposedly loosing money that I was never going to give to them? This is why the used market thrives, so gamers can pick up games that they would have otherwise passed on due to price. I believe that, just as with piracy, the effects of used game sales are GREATLY over-exaggerated by the industry.

When I purchase a used game, I legally own that game. The transaction of legal tender acts as the contract, and it's no matter that I'm not purchasing a retail copy. It's just not right for developers to discriminate against these consumers just because there is a supposed (and largely imaginary) small loss of income. If I buy a game used, I still paid my hard earned cash for it, I'm still a legal owner of that game, and I want the same damn game as a consumer purchasing it new would get.

Sure, incentives, such as small exclusive DLC, are fine, but everything is spinning out of control right now, and it's ridiculous.

[kevnb]

people dont buy a car, drive it for a week then sell it. Then the next buddy drives the car for a week and sells it again and so on.

[Sarcasm]

Whether or not comparing video games to the used car market or anything else, why in the world do these companies act as if this is something entirely new??? They've been selling used games since god knows how long. I remember buying used versions of PS1 games.

[spektical]

sooo what cold and henry are saying is that games such as Halo 2 should still be sold at $40?

and that Resistance should be sold for $60.. i mean games dont lose value right? i guess books (which also stay in perfect working condition, aside for normal wear and tear.. which disks go through also) shouldnt be sold at bargain prices, because they shouldnt lose value over time..

LOL the nerve of some people to say video games dont lose value over time, you guys are idiots.

[HenryFord]

@spektical:
Wow... you really missed every point made. I never said that the games should be priced as before.
The value is not necessarly indicated by the price...

But what the heck: Im really loosing interest in debating here...

Amazing is how you get my opinions...: I def. think that the used-games market is important, I hate Publishers pushing this market down, and I think EAs games pass is just a spit in the face.

[Rainstorm81]

Either that or the Death of used game sales.

Once every dev starts to go this rout, you will be forced to buy the game new to get the full experiences, or fork over another 10 bucks which means you might as well had bought it new, with some used game prices.

Activison is so full of it, how well did MW2 sell again?

[Enate]

What about people that rent they are inadvertently effecting another market. Which personally I think is the point, they are not stupid. They know renting is a huge market that will be effected by this as well. An if they were thinking these companies would know that renting accounts for a lot of new sales in itself. I can't tell you how many times I've rented a game first and decided I to buy it later because I was able to rent it.

An if I wasn't able to, it would have turned out to be a pass because it was a game I was on the fence about. Though after renting the game an getting the full experience I ended up buying new because the game was so good. An I had one game from gamefly for a month and still ended up buying it new so even a 7 day grace period isn't enough. If they think it won't hurt sales, you just wait. People like to know something they are going to spend a considerable amount of money on is a sure thing. Take that ability away and people will become even more cautious this I promise you.

Don't even get me started on having two or three PS3's in the same house. Now you can't even barrow a game in your own house without paying that's just stupid.

[Digitaldude]

Not them too...

[vhero]

Treyarch are a problem. Pre-owned is a solution to saving money for consumers.

[sjaakiejj]

Pre-Owned is a problem mainly due to businesses such as GameStop and GameStation, in which they sell pre-owned games next to new games at a lower price. If it was just for e-bay, publishers wouldn't care. It's these retailers that make the problem, and since they refuse to give a share of the earned money to the publishers, then they are effectively damaging the publishers sales. This gives the publisher one area to step into, and that is making sure that the game can only be played by one household unless an additional amount of money is paid.
I don't blame them. I support them.

[spektical]

gamestop isnt a problem. selling games at $60 is already a problem in itself.

supply and demand, the demand is cheaper games and pre-owened (gamestop) provides that for the consumers. The supplier is already trying to milk us hard by having us fork over $60 for a game, without knowing if the game is a glitchfest (Mw2) or if the game is worthwile (terminator salvation). On top of that, developers are releasing DLC to further gain their financial resources.

I support good devs, but at the same time I support our customer bargaining power way more.

[sjaakiejj]

Considering the amount of money it costs to create a game, piracy and the number of sales a videogame at 60 dollars needs to only repay the budget, you can see that that's a perfectly reasonable price. Of all the games that are created, how many sell over a million? How many games that don't have a budget high enough to need a million sales?
exactly.

[outrageous]

Here we go again. One million in sales produces a profit. A game that sells 5+ million is extremely wealthy. Greed is gonna ruin gaming, already is. Not only is this extremely greedy, now they are saying it right to the face of gamers everywhere.

Then they complain about piracy. When you over charge for something over and over you can expect a back lash. Piracy will become rampant. The 360 is suffering RIGHT NOW with a huge piracy problem similar to what happen to the PS2 and still happening to DS and PSP. Look at the sales this year alone. 40 million consoles for 360 and maybe a few million in sales. People don't just stop playing. You will start to here more and more in the coming weeks.

[kevnb]

you don't own any game you buy ever, you only own the disc. If you owned the game, you could do anything you wanted including making your own copies to sell.

[ikkokucrisis]

Woohoo, I love paying extra for stuff!!
I'm gonna tell all of my friends to get this game!!

Treyarch, please call me, I'm your #1 fan!!
Treyarch, I REALLY liked COD3!!
Treyarch, I even know how to pronounce your name (Tr-ey-ar-ch)!!

I want me some Treyarch stew!!

[chak_]

they'd rather rape your wallet with 30€ DLC than a 10€ online pass.

Logic should I say.

Or disgusting, damn I never know

[LordMarius]

Treyarch is a problem

/fixed

[El Nino]

I dont think thats entirely fair, it was always gonna be difficult to live up to COD4, and while the single player was ordinary they brought zombies into cod, supported the community far better than IW ever did

i'm hopefull for black ops, because no COD game can be worse than MW2 online, its a shambles with horrendus map design, weapons, perks, connectivity, just every single thing online is flawed

[radphil]

Only problem, is that it just seemed like with SP, they just kinda piggy backed on what IW did with previous titles. Thing is the zombie mode in WaW is about the main thing I'll give them. Everything else they have done was average at best.

You are right though in the Black Ops thing, but unfortunately with their previous reputation, along with the whole MW2 thing not going well, I'll have to sit back and wait on it.

[El Nino]

these companies made great games with longevity and replay value (think mgs series, zelda, god of war etc etc) they wouldnt have to worry about the pre-owned market...

also from an online perspective, if the games (ie MW2) wasnt plagued by cheats and numerous flaws then they wouldnt have to worry once again

[karlowma]

Create lasting value, and I wouldn't ever feel the need to resell my games. Continue creating 5-8 hour shoddy single player experiences with the same multiplayer in 90% of games, and I'll drop that shit like it's hot.

It's really not the fault of Gamestop etc. that most of today's games have zero attachment value. I have lots of games dating back to the NES that I will keep forever, because I am attached to them in some way. There are very few games of the current generation of which I feel the same way.

This "dev/publisher hates used game sales" drivel is quickly declining to an us vs. them scenario; typically not a game you want to play with your paying customers.

[the-show-stopper]

exactly, the better the product the more ppl that will buy it new
and if they support it and dont let it fall in shammbles then ppl will stick with that title and buy future games from that developer

[kevnb]

we might get less hugely advertised titles, but our games are made to last.

[Pandamobile]

Exactly. Just look at how many people have bought Counter Strike: Source and TF2 over the years without a spec of advertising.

[Senden]

No the real problem is Treyarch's employers who perverse the game industry with their milking tactics, charging more for games, overpriced dlc, foul mouthed CEO and screwing over their own employees.

There are loads of second hand products which cost a whole range of different companies money.. I don't see why the gaming industry all of a sudden feels the need to whinge.

[MetalFreakMike]

Well if they go down the subscription path then I will never buy another Call of Duty game ever again! Mark my words! Never again! I refuse to support a company that wants you to pay every month to play a FPS online. It is already bad enough that World of Warcraft is subscription based and people can not seem to get enough of it. If they do this then they will lose a lot of sales and Call of Duty will go under for good.

[jakethemuss]

.

[Revvin]

I don't believe the publishers and developers have a problem with the average user selling their game privately to a friend or even perhaps on Ebay because swapping games has gone on since the dawn of gaming from swapping selling ATARI cartridges to current DVD and Blu-Ray games. I believe the real problem for the publishers and developers are the likes of Gamestop, GAME and Gamestation. The big high street chains who have the monopoly on the high street and who promote used copies over new.

I can walk into a GAME or Gamestation here in the UK with 99% certainty that when I take a new copy to the cashier they will ask me if I want to buy a used copy to save a few £'s. They often look a little shocked when I say no but the usual pricing in GAME and Gamestation for a new release is £39.99 and they have used copies only marked down a few £'s to £37.99 for a new release. The prices seldom really drop to what I would consider a fair second hand price compared to what I could buy it for on Ebay. The actual price GAME and Gamestation pay for trade-ins is usually very low so they always have a huge mark-up when it goes back on the shelf.

GAME and Gamestation have more shelf space dedicated to second hand copies of games so because of that and the way they try to push a second hand copy when you go to buy new is where the real problem is for publishers and developers. On the rare occasion I do buy second hand I'd rather buy on Ebay so I know that I get a better price and the person selling also gets a fair price - better than what they would have got at a high street chain so both gamers get a good deal.

[SOAD]

The developers and publishers are mad because retailers double dip with used game sales. Gamestop, for example, can sell a game new for 65 bucks and make a profit (subtract the cost they paid to the publisher). Then, Gamestop can pay a gamer like 10 bucks for a used game and then sell that game used for maybe 50 bucks and make a 40 dollar profit on it. The publishers are kind of jealous of this.

They probably want the retailer to send them a kickback everytime they make a profit on a used game sale.

If publishers really want to stick it to the retailers, they can focus more on online distribution through STEAM. They will make a greater profit from DD than through retail.

[madpuppy]

Digital Distribution is consumer unfriendly. it is a scam, the day consoles become DD platforms is the day I go back to being a PC gamer only. I have said this before, the only way DD will be viable is if there is a "consumer bill of rights" that allows for backing up your game to physical media, and the ability to transfer a game to a third party. seeing that is what they are trying to avoid, DD will never be fit for anything other than cheap 15.00 or less games and other small purchases.

[champ21]

Agreed with Madpuppy

While DD works fine for PC, because there are many digital outlets that sell DD on PC.

If PSN/XBL took over complete control of games distribution for consoles. Both of them may as well set a price of 60usd per game and not worry about anyone undercutting their prices.

DD only would be very bad for consoles.

[HorriblePanda]

there are some ppl on here wont stand for publishers and DEVs crap....they are trying to make it so everybody buys new and are crying about used sells hurting them....lol how about they stop making so many damn online games and make new IPs and i would be more incline to buy new more

[ll_UNDERSCORE_ll]

Maybe this might seemed far fetched but maybe charging a single title $60+ could be a little reason why consumers buy second hand. I'm not saying its the whole problem just a tiny bit of a consumers reasoning for saving hard earned money.

[josh14399]

they sell millions of copies its hardly a problem to them they still make a massive profit. its only harming games that barely sell 1mill,

[EverydayGuy]

I'm going to be more picky about buying video games now. If they complain about second hand buyers, then we should complain about DLC costing money.

[champ21]

If they complain so much about used sales.

Then they should remember they have taken away all user freedom. They should give the user ability to mod even on consoles. So ppl dont have to get ripped everytime with their rediculous charges for DLCS which being old maps.

Any modder could bring MW1 maps to MW2, and thats just the way it should be just like the old days.

[kn]

Sell one version that has multiplayer and DLC unlocked with a one-time code in the box. Sell another that doesn't do online except to download patches and only contains the campaign. It would kill the resale value of the multiplayer version since that is their gripe. The single player version would still have value in resale but wouldn't choke servers.

I don't play online ever... I prefer the campaigns. I'm simply NOT going to buy a 5-6 hour campaign that I'll play through once or twice and pay $60. I bought Gears 1/2 MW and MW2 all used during promos where I paid about $30 each very close to their initial release. I'd pay $30-40 (new) for single-player crippled versions all day long without looking back...

Games like Mass Effect 2, on the other hand, were purchased new at full price since it is a LONG game... I'm 40+ hours in and not done yet.

It would be an interesting experiment to see how well a game with no online capability would sell relative to its multiplayer-enabled version...

[NYC_Gamer]

well pre-owned is good for us gamers out here on budgets..

[MysticStrummer]

They just made me less interested in the game.

[theonlylolking]

I cant believe this hasnt gone to court yet.

[theonlylolking]

I dont see movies on DVD or blu-ray doing this so why should games?

[hiredhelp]

QUESTION TO ALL.
for thoes of you who have hated this idea. WILL YOU STILL BUY THIS GAME.

you see when we heard about price rise in mw2 people said we boycotting not buying it when come out who bought it.
so is this gonna be the same all over again or are we gonna make a stand.

ACTIVISION WILL NEVER LEARN UNLESS WE ACT. its us that feed them new cars its us that gives them a healthy wage packet. its us that keeps the company going.

[NYC_Gamer]

^^^thats 100% truth

[MRMagoo123]

I will def not buy there game without a doubt.

[tudors]

This is by far the most intelligent post( see below) I have ever seen in my days on this forum, actually if the devs force a re-sale rule on second hand stores that requires a small commision actually they benefit from second hand sales because like you say they have to provide server capacity for the amount of games they sell, and it's 1 to 1 ratio, so in that sense 2nd hand would benefit them. What I would say to the devs is if you are going to do anything rash then maybe just charge a small licence fee which means if I pay you to play on your servers then let that cover all your games that I play, but the problem here is where does it stop? I say let Xbox-live and PSN charge subscriptions to cover licence costs but keep the prices low, if we end up paying per publisher it just will not work....the only other thing is total DLC.

You should twitter them with this madpuppy:

"It is impossible for used sales to raise capacity, Remember, a publisher is the only entity that produces the game legally. if a publisher sells 1 million copies of a game they have to provide server support for 1 million gamers. reselling 250,000 of that 1 million used WILL NEVER INCREASE SERVER CAPACITY, EVER! It is impossible, I don't know why people fall for this kind of garbage from the publishers. they just hate the idea of not making more money, at least that I understand"

[yamzilla]

in 1-2 years the only place to buy used games will be on the net....ebay, amazon ect...it happened with music cd's and pc games....what makes you think it won't happen to console games...

Gamestop is an idiodic scam...
they pay you 25 bucks for your two day old game and sell that bit@h for 55 dollars...then, the moron who bought the used game for 55 bucks comes back to gamestop and gets 20 dollars for it now....then they sell it again for $55.....ad infintium.

So of course the Devs are pissed, they lose multiple, countless sales to just one used game.

[MRMagoo123]

I have been buying used games since i got an Amstrad cpc 464 ,if its such a problem why has it been going on for at least 22 years that i have been doing it?

One more thing if there was no second hand games there would be alot of games i wouldnt ever buy so i dont see them missing out on money from that either.

[hazelamy]

for hundreds of years we've been able to resell the media we've bought and paid for, that includes books, videos, music and games.
why now does the videogame industry suddenly think they deserve to keep making money on what is now our property?
you know why? greed.
the game has already been paid for, whether the original user keeps playing or a second user the price has already been paid.
they're not losing money, in fact with most trade ins going to new purchases i'd bet they need preowned sales, the problem they have is they see somebody making money and it's not them, that gets their greed senses working tingling, it's a bit like spidersense but it react to money not danger.
i have questioned time and again the legality of any manufacturer deliberately devaluing their customers property once they've bought it, because that's exactly what they doing.
imagine if you bought a new car and once you've bought it they ripped out the passenger seats.
and how can they expect to keep benefiting from their games when they don't take any responsibility for them?
they say when we buy and use the game it's at our own risk, so then they're our games, but go to sell them on and suddenly they're their games again.
do they provide compensation when their crappy servers go down? do they give refunds when they shut down the crappy servers after a year or two?

to return to the spiderman comparison again, they want the power, but none of the responsibility.
and remember, they don't actually host games, they just provide matchmaking and scorekeeping, the games are actually peer to peer, so we pay for the games and then we have to host them too.
and they say they're losing money off preowned sales?
i say get frakked.