The End of Pre-Owned Games?

With the announcement of the PSN Pass, many gamers are asking themselves “Could this be the end for the pre-owned video game market?”.

Sony announced today that they would be implementing the PSN Pass which is a “network pass program” which would require the gamer to purchase the game new instead of used to have full access to the game content.

We first saw this when EA released Mass Effect 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 which used a redeemable code to allow those who buy the game to access free and additional content. Those who buy the pre-owned version must either do without or pay for a new code.

Sony will roll-out the program with Resistance 3. Any games that are part of the program will come bundled with a code that can be used once, and grants users “full online access for that title.”

So what does this all mean for gamers? If you plan on pickup up games such as Resistance 3 in the future, then you won’t be able to access many of the game’s features without a “PSN Pass“.

Online pass programs are viewed as a way to combat the sale of used games, as publishers have often complained of never seeing any profit from that massive secondhand industry. Stores like GameStop receive full revenue on any pre-owned games, leaving developers empty-handed.

Microsoft has not released any information on future plans to implement a pass for their network, but many game developers such as EA Sports and THQ are implementing “passes” in many of their upcoming games to be released next year.

[SageHonor]

Okay I have a few thoughts on the pass.

Here is my problem with it.. if publishers succeed with these PSN passes, then even more publishers from other companies will attempt to do so.. If that succeeds even more.. then who knows what else companies will try to lower used games sales?

We want to save as much money as we can
Publishers want to make as much money as they can
There has to be some kind of comprimise

But if developers make good quality games then we gamers will buy them at full price.

If any of you dont already know.. Amazon.com has deducted prices on new games few weeks/months after the game releases. I got Mass Effect 2 with all the DLC for only 35 bucks new a month after it came out for PS3 in january. I go Uncharted 2 GOTY addition for only 30 bucks new a few weeks after it came out. I also got Heavy Rain, Just Cause 2, etc.. All NEW for less than 40 bucks.. so its not the end of the world for people who own debit/credit cards

[Neckbear]

You know, many times I've heard the "If developers want cash, then they should make a GOOD game!", and many times I've thought it's as shallow and fallacious as it sounds.

No, even if a developer makes a "good game", there's no guarantee it'll sell; heavily marketed games sell better than "good games". Much, much better. Hell, most of what I'd consider "good games" don't make it past the one million mark, for crying out loud!

And if you were presented with the choice of buying a "good game" either used and cheaper, or new but more expensive, you'd obviously pick the former. Because it's capitalism, and really, you don't care about a company all that much.

So, no. The issue here isn't about "making a good game", it's about little, whiny idiots who will give as many excuses as they can to justify their acts on the internet, no less; and of ambitious publishers that want to appeal the lowest common denominator to make as much cash as possible. Because it's a business and all those things that have been said ad infinitum.

[SageHonor]

The only thing in that last paragraph that makes sense is the "appeal to the lowest common denominator. Like I said we want to save money and publishers want to make money. I don't understand the "whiny little idiots remark" because its not about people justifying their acts on the internet. We just want to get good value when it comes to buying games.

Gamers would be more likely to buy a game at full price if its good. I never said it was guranteed.

[hamoor]

AGAIN!
Look at who does this:

EA. Multi-billion company with many franchises that sold TENS OF MILLIONS OF COPIES

UBISOFT. same with EA bug not quite as profitable

SONY. Do I need to write how much money they got??

The POINT is they are NOT POOR
THEIR GAMES SOLD MILLIONS AND MILLIONS AND THEY STILL WANT MORE CASH??
I say f&&$ em

[dedicatedtogamers]

PSN Pass is nothing new. Used games didn't die when EA and Ubisoft enacted their online passes, just like PC piracy didn't die when EA and Ubisoft (and others) enacted their PC DRM.

At best, we'll see people tolerating the passes if they're only for playing the online portion of a game. At worst, we'll see people completely reject a game like they did for RE Mercenaries on the 3DS.

[ABizzel1]

I have no problem with PS Pass, or EA Pass, etc... You can always find deals on games online if you look, and buying a brand new game used generally cost $50 - $55 from gamespot, $45 on gamefly. It's all a matter of what you want.

If you want to play online buy the game new, if not, there's a good chance you were going to buy it used anyway.

The only ones complaining are people who buy used the majority of the time.

That being said I think price is a big issue with the game industry, but I'll save that debate for another time.

[jessupj]

Don't forget renters.

This really pisses me off because sometimes I want to play the full game but only for a week or so, but now I'm forced to pay the full price of the game if i want to experience all of it and get all the trophies.

They should have at least given an option for renters. I'm not happy.

[ABizzel1]

I forgot about renting, I have a gamefly account. To be honest though the games I rent are again games I don't know for sure if I want to buy or not, and ultimately what decides if I want to buy a game or not is how good the single player is. The online helps the sell somewhat. So it still won't bother me personally, and again renting isn't helping the developers get any profit, so the point of the passes continues.

[SilentNegotiator]

"The only ones complaining are people who buy used the majority of the time"

Renters, people with lots of friends who want to play on their systems with them, people who want to lend it to a friend......

You were saying? DRM affects people who buy new as well. Don't tell you that you think 'mom and pop publishers' like EA, that made over $200 million profit last year, is in serious need of 'saving' from used game sales.

They shouldn't be screwing over new buyers just to stop people from buying used. Any game I can get new I do, but I won't even bother purchasing titles that will keep me from doing such basic things as playing it on multiple systems (even if they allow a few, it's still limiting DRM).

[ABizzel1]

When EA makes a profit that means their developers get more resources, and more studios can be opened. When EA loses money studios close, and people lose their jobs.

Buying games new supports the developers/publishers/and even the people who print the manuals. It's more than just stopping a big organization which is what so many people never seem to get, because it doesn't affect them directly/immediately.

Let's say you work in a store, and someone comes in an steal a bunch of your inventory. The boss lays you off because they can't afford to resupply the store and keep you around. That's what happens when used games are bought. Sure EA doesn't like it but nothing bad happens to them, it happens to the very people making the game you bought used so you could save $5 - $10.

It's understandable that you can be angry by not being able to let your friends borrow the game, but if I'm not mistaken you can download things up to 5 times on PSN, so just put your account on their PS3, and download that activation code in your history/my account. I don't know if that works or not, but if it does problem solved.

[Bonobo12345]

As it stands, it's a bummer. I regularly buy pre owned games as there are many I want but it's unrealistic to get them all new..

There are many ways to spin this, one is blaming Sony and Dev's for implementing such a restricting program. But however is it fair to say dev's can not gain any profit from the second hand market?

My view is that stores such as Gamestop and the like charge too much for pre owned games, They but them for near nothing and sell them at a huge profit.

This is where the problem lies, If Gamestop were to charge less for pre-owned games then the PSN pass would even it out, the store gets a cut, the Dev's get a cut and we don't have to pay more.

[hamoor]

I can NOT believe the people who defend such acts from MULTI BILLION COMPANIES!

THEY ARE NOT POOR! THEY WON'T GO BANKRUPT BECAUSE OF USED SALES!

as long is the game has been sold, after that the dev shouldn't be concerned about what happens next.

Actually, those acts may backfire at their faces as the reason why people often buy used is because it is cheap and when they see those 10$ that they have to pay they may not buy the game. And thos, may not support the developers by buying dlc.
"bu bu but used salez doesn't support teh poor developerz"
WRONG! they can support by buying dlc. How do they make people buy their dlc?? MAKE EM GOOD AND NOT OVERPRICED.

If it was some unknown, indie developers maybe and that a big MAYBE they deserve some help and support with passes.
But again, look at who does this bs (EA, UBISOFT, SONY ETC.) All are big corporations and the only thing they want from these passes is to nickle and dime us as much as they can.
And who even KNOWS if those 10$ go to the developers and not EA, SONY or UBISOFT.

[Bonobo12345]

You seem to have completely misunderstood what I was getting at.

Did I once say that Dev's are poor and they need our money? No, you just read what you wanted to read.
Did I say that any company was poor, or that any needed help? No, once again your little mind inserted an argument to go against, one that was not even there.

I'm a business student and I looked at it from this angle.
As a Dev I would want my game to sell as much as possible, so that I could make more money.
With used games on the market at low prices consumers are more likely to go for that option (obviously) and that will hurt sales of my game in the long run.. It does not mean I will go bankrupt, (It may kill an IP in some cases, not unlikely) but it means there is money there that I could have made.

I was not looking at fairness to the consumer only, as most people seem to do. I was looking at the fairness to all parties(COMPROMISE), in my solution the retailers come off worse.

I don't know about you but I'd rather give my money to the developers of the game I like rather than Gamestop or some other business whore.

The solution would mean no change to us but would mean that more money goes to the Dev instead of the retailers...

But somehow you managed to twist it into some pathetic little counter argument.
I'm not defending any company for the current plan, which sucks ,(if you read the first thing I wrote you would know my opinion) But I get tired of being a pissy little child complaining about the companies that provide me with what I want most.

This is business after all, Got to grow up and be an adult sometimes, kid....

[hamoor]

"With used games on the market at low prices consumers are more likely to go for that option (obviously) and that will hurt sales of my game in the long run.. It does not mean I will go bankrupt, (It may kill an IP in some cases, not unlikely) but it means there is money there that I could have made. "

If they want money on the long run they can release DLC.... Oh wait!
THEY ALREADY DOING THAT AND THEY ARE F$$&ing US OVER IT.
Overpriced DLC.
DLC that ON THE FREAKING DISC ITSELF.
And no. If your game doesn't sell well then it DOESN'T. Not because of used games!
I've heard about developers going bankrupt because of piracy but used games?? Nope, never heard!

"I don't know about you but I'd rather give my money to the developers of the game I like rather than Gamestop or some other business whore."

So gamestop selling what they OWN LEGALLY then they are the evil and are "business whores" but when Sony,UBI AND EA or any gaming corporation scam us with their passes then it is ok???

"The solution would mean no change to us but would mean that more money goes to the Dev instead of the retailers... "

IF UBI or EA or Sony got a problem with gamestop then it their problems and we shouldn't pay any cent.
Besides, if gamestop bothered them so much then why they don't stop shipping their games to them?? Or BAN them from selling their used games?
Oh because scamming us is more profitable!

"This is business after all, Got to grow up and be an adult sometimes, kid...."

If that's your view of "maturity" then am a happy kid!

[hamoor]

Hey developers, I heard you are soo poor that if you don't include passes in your games your families will die from hunger /s

Well, you want money?? Heres the formula:

-MAKE A GOOD GAME

[bozebo]

uuhhh... it is the developers who are poor. They only money they usually see is development costs (wages, equipment, etc). They get nothing in the way of economies of scale from their publishers (ie, they cannot gain independant growth through increased cashflow like most businesses do when they do well) - the publishers are the ones who make all the money.

[bozebo]

If game retailers cannot sell second hand titles they will have to increase their retail prices of new games to stay in business. At the moment, they don't make much off new games that they sell.

So games will be $70 or more on average. Leaving digital distribution as the only viable method for consumers (though at the moment, Steam's launch prices are a bit overpriced - often more expensive than a boxed version from an online retailer).

[caseh]

Everyone takes a hit in this whole mess of an idea:

Say Gamestop buy 500k units of MvsC3 and retail at $60 a game. The Devs/Publishers have already made their money, the units have been shifted.

Consumer doesn't want to pay $60, waits for price drop. Prices eventually drop, Gamestop profit margin drops, consumer gets their game but not as cheap as it would have been pre-owned.

Next time around, Gamestop order fewer units from publishers thinking it probably won't shift as well. Devs/Publishers see lower sales, consumer still gets screwed as games will have to stay at elevated prices as Gamestops profit margin has been reduced. Stock will usually be cheaper in bigger amounts when purchased which would usually promote retails prices to drop sooner once a certain number of units have been shifted.

To sum it up, its a fucking mess and it shouldn't be allowed.

[dinkeldinkse]

"We first saw this when EA released Mass Effect 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 which used a redeemable code to allow those who buy the game to access free and additional content." If Sony was doing this, I wouldn't really care because it gives an incentive to buy new for additional content not because certain features are gimped or taken away. Reward people for buying new, instead of punishing them for buying used.

[caseh]

'Reward people for buying new, instead of punishing them for buying used.'

I second that motion!

[blackburn10]

Two things. One I am amazed that it wasn't the end of preowned games when EA and Ubisoft did this. No one stopped buying their games because of the pass with no shout of boycott and their profits didn't go down in the slightest but as usual when Sony does something suddenly its time to call in the marines and grab the tar and feathers. Suddenly its end of life as we know it. Hypocrites all of you.

Second I am amazed that people are going on about a 5 dollar pass when you pay a thousand plus for gaming rigs, pay for Xbox Live and monthly MMO fees and DLS for every game imaginable. If you buy a 360 used you have to pay $60.00 to make Live work and the price of the system used. And yet you gripe and b***h and moan over a five dollar pass that doesn't affect you if you buy the game new, at a discount or on sale and only affects the person using the game after you. And to make things worse you have no problem funding Gamestop and friends while they rip you off. Hypocrites.

[hamoor]

Everybody hated online passes since it saw the light of the day.
The only hypocrite here is you....

Comparing buying gaming rigs and MMO just shows how much of a fail your comment holds..

[blackburn10]

So why do you still buy the games that use them? Your hate wasn't enough to avoid MK or to stop you from pre-ordering BF3. Why don't you guys take a stand and refuse to buy these games until they remove the pass? But you have no qualms attacking Insomniac and threatening not to buy R3. So no I'm not the hypocrite, you are. You b***h and moan about whoever you want to do it to but bend over and take the screwing from whoever you want. 360 owners have to pay for Live AND the pass while we play for PSN for free. But no one seems to mind that. I comment regularly how much people pay for things and I get hit with 'get a job' and 'just because you can't afford it'. But here people are griping for $5.00

Hate the pass? Talking about hating the pass isn't worth $hit. That's like putting your hand on a hot stove and shouting about how much it hurts but not taking your hand off of it. Stop buying Ubisoft's and EA's games too or STFU. Your not fooling anyone.

[dinkeldinkse]

Please don't lump all of the people against the pass together. I don't play MK or BF3 and besides buying Dante's Inferno a couple of months ago on PSN, I haven't bought a full retail title from EA since NCAA Football 09.(I do have Dragon Age:Origins and NCAA Football 11, but they were gifts. Also I did buy the DeathSpanks, NHL, and Madden Arcade games on PSN, but do they even have a pass?)

I haven't decided if I am going to boycott R3 or not.

[caseh]

'One I am amazed that it wasn't the end of preowned games when EA and Ubisoft did this. No one stopped buying their games because of the pass with no shout of boycott'

Myself and around 5 friends were going to pick up BFBC2 at Christmas pre-owned, was on offer with it being Christmas and all. I stacked the games up on the counter as I had taken the duty of buying the games, informed gent behind the counter tells me 'you won't get full functionality without an online pass' or something to that extent. I looked at the games, looked at the guy and let out a 'ugh' of disbelief and put them back on the shelf.

You're right, theres no boycott but as a result none of us bought that game so no one benefits other than the PUBLISHER WHO HAD ALREADY SOLD THOSE GAMES TO A GAMESTORE TO BEGIN WITH.

You see how that works. :)

[kramun]

It's not going to effect me much, I mostly only play the SP portions of games I buy anyway, and I know I'm not the only one. So I doubt very much that it's the end of pre-owned game.

[jjank11]

The passes are to make up for the costs to have online gaming, more or less. Whether or not the company has billions, millions or thousands, they have huge overhead expenses (especially for games with alot of production value) and in most cases shareholders to please. Online gaming is only getting more complex and costly. I have no problem if companies want to keep a revenue stream for their games with online especially with PSN since it is free. It will only help to create better games. If people are so interested in gaming, then think about the game creators, not the company. Just think as if you are providing money to successful game creators.

[mechlord]

bullsh*t.

The passes are not to make up for costs to have online gaming. those costs are covered in the original price or else even the first buyer would have to buy the pass.
its not more load on their resources, its the same load coming from a different IP. thats it.
How is it that, you playing a game for 30 days and
you gaming for 15 days and someone else plays the same copy for the other 15 days create extra load/strain on their side ?????????????

[fooxy]

Simple solution, buy less games wait for good deals online when they r cheaper :D

[Brownghost]

who cares i love buying used anyway also most games have terrible online and not all games even have online, the only thing this is gonna affect is shooters but games like far cry 3, batman AC, and skyrim will not and thats all i care plus most games with multiplayer have dead multiplayer before a year

[QuodEratDemonstrandm]

<RANT>

To the publishers I say; Quit whining about used game sales. You already sold that copy. It's not like a new copy was made and you're getting nothing out of it. IT'S THE SAME COPY YOU ALREADY SOLD. This online pass is looking like a way for you to sell the same game twice. No, no, no. you already made your money off that game. sell another copy and move on.

To the gamers I say; quit your whining about this new online pass. It's not going to break you. Here's how it works. If you buy a game new, then YOU DON'T PAY A DIME FOR THE ONLINE PASS (DUH!) You only pay if you buy the game USED. And if you DO buy the game used, then it's, what? $35? $40? It's still a better deal than buying new, even with the online pass. Let the publishers make their profits, so they can expand their operations, and buy more studios and build more games. In case you haven't noticed, those things are expensive to make. It's not like the old days when Jim and Frank could build the NEXT BIG THING in their basement on the weekends. watch the credits next time you play a game. It took ALL of those people AT LEAST two years to build that game. That's literally MILLIONS of man-hours. If it bothers you that much than sell your 360, and your ps3, get a Club Pogo membership and leave the gamers with some critical thinking skills alone.

</RANT>

Addendum: I admit, I do feel some sympathy for renters. they like to try a game before they buy it. I used to do this all the time during the SNES and PS1 generations. The easiest way to allow access to online content for renters is a 2 week free trial before you have to buy the online pass. After two weeks, you would either have to buy the online pass or return the game to BlockBuster, or RedBox, or GameFly or wherever you got it.

See how easy that is? I like to call it "thinking."

[Main_Street_Saint]

While I don't like the idea, I am usually more into a single player game; the multiplayer is just icing on the cake. As long as it doesn't effect single player modes than I might be willing to live in this future.

[Les-Grossman]

Microsoft is in no condition to do a Game Pass until they make XBOX Live free. Which will never happen

[mechlord]

what i dont really understand is why they want a piece of the second hand market. I mean, selling things you own, buying stuff second hand has been with us since the Neanderthals started it....why the f**k do they think they precious little games are so special that need a different treatment from ... dunno, everything else buyable in the entire world? god help us if every industry out there thinks this is ok. the sad thing is, there are so many blindfolded people that this will actually happen.

Why should they have a piece of the 15 bucks i gain when i resell my game? didnt i pay 60 bucks for the game?

They say "we need money to make those servers run, and that second person isnt paying for them".

Wow, thats a royal fallacy and i dont understand how people havent saw thu it. I mean, its not like me and the other guy will be playing at the same time, doubling network resources consumption...no, he will be my replacement.

To them, whats the difference if i play online for a month or i play 15 days and sell the game and someone else plays the other 15 ??????? WTF ?!

They are just being plain greedy, lets face it. the fact that some people are okay with it (ie, they never buy second hands and never sell) doesnt make this any bit right(er) :)

[fishy1]

Its simple, Greed. When people start giving "royalties" the the auto and electronics industries for all the used sells. These guys are just greedy simple minded gaming hillbillies! We made the game we should get money for used sells, its different than cars or tv's nobody makes those. Yeah thats stupid simple minded thinking. This will only lower the resell value not stop used sells. IF i gotta pay 10 bucks to get the rest of the game, than greedy gamestop is gonna have to lower the used prices by the same amount. As it sits they already charge 55$ for a used copy of a 60$ game. so less content means they better stop being just as greedy. :P