[Saty]

Interim DICE CEO and Battlefield 3 executive producer Patrick Bach has weighed in on the debate surrounding the rumoured introduction of anti-used game measures for next-gen consoles. "Yeah, I heard about that. I think that can be a win and a loss," he told CVG at a recent EA event. "I think it's a loss if it only means that you will be able to get fewer games for the same money. But in theory you could see it the other way, because a lot of companies making games today are struggling based on second-hand sales." "So if you think that there are too few new IPs on the market, no one can take that risk if their game is at risk of being resold too many times. Therefore you see a lot of online games being the most popular. You mentioned that you feel like a lot of [online shooters] have the same formula and this is one of the reasons, which most people seem to not realise. "So on the positive side you could see more games being created because of this, and also more new IPs, because there'd be a bigger market for games that don't have for instance multiplayer. There could be awesome single player-only games, which you can't really do these days because people just pirate them, which is sad. "From a gamer perspective, if you want to buy as many games as possible then this could be a problem, but if you want more diverse games then it's a more positive thing than negative. The only thing I know is that people are not doing it to be evil and stupid, it's about trying to create some benefits for consumers."

http://www.computerandvideogames.com...VG-General-RSS

[StevieP]

Publishers are still going to be risk-averse when there are dozens of millions of dollars involved in making a game. This will be worse as development costs go slightly higher next gen. No amount of anti-used measures will mitigate that, though unfortunately for us these measures are going to be in place anyway.

[Relaxed Muscle]

"it's about trying to create some benefits for consumers" lol

Yeah game companies, keep avoiding all the real issues while putting more barriers and obstacle to consumers.

[Teknopathetic]

"because a lot of companies making games today are struggling based on second-hand sales."


I'm sure that's why they're struggling.

[Kinyou]

Aren't there people who buy games new, finish them, resell them and then buy a new game with that money?

Wont the publishers lose those people?

[Psi]

it's about trying to create some benefits for consumers.

I pity anyone who believes this.

[Gowans]

XBLA/PSN exclusive games give a smaller window on this 'issue' already I feel.

[Leondexter]

When they've managed to kill the used market, causing a huge dent in new sales and hurting the overall market...


...they'll just blame Apple. And everyone will believe it.

[jimi_dini]

How is that good for new IPs? Less people will buy them then, because there is no resale value, which means less people will risk shelling out money for it. Sounds like PR spin to me.

You first need to get many people to want/buy your game. After that you can think about what to do so that they won't sell it later.

The only thing I know is that people are not doing it to be evil and stupid, it's about trying to create some benefits for consumers.

haha, yeah exactly. It's not about getting more money out of the consumer. No. It's to "create benefits for consumers". Like removing the right to resell his games. Haha. Sure. And Santa Clause is real. DICE has so much work to create those games. Why not help them save their time and money by not buying their games. It's only for the benefit of DICE.

[alr1ght]

"So if you think that there are too few new IPs on the market, no one can take that risk if their game is at risk of being resold too many times. Therefore you see a lot of online games being the most popular. You mentioned that you feel like a lot of [online shooters] have the same formula and this is one of the reasons, which most people seem to not realise.

LOL

You think there will be more diverse games at $60 a pop that cannot be resold? Consumers will take less chances, and only buy "sure thing" games and we'll see even more sequels.

Really, this guy's whole spiel makes no sense at all.

[TheMan]

Aren't there people who buy games new, finish them, resell them and then buy a new game with that money? Wont the publishers lose those people?

i do this pretty often. the number of games i buy per year would decrease dramatically if i were suddenly unable to sell. On the other hand, I sympathize with developers who lose out on a lot of money because of used game sales. Perhaps the better strategy would be tiered pricing and quicker price cuts on new games.

online passes are an interesting approach and I don't blame companies for trying it. what I hate are companies like EA who love online passes and then shut servers down in a couple of years. if a game requires an online pass, it should be playable indefinitely.

[WanderingWind]

Once again, won't somebody please think of the publishers? DICE is barely breaking even because of second hand sales, folks!

[NullPointer]

Its a win for you, and a loss for the customers.

Yeah, we already knew this.

[tci]

This is just silly. It is never about us consumers.

I wonder how much they all have wasted on DRM and other shitty solutions (game companies in general). Imagine them jumping on the Steam wagon, 10 years ago.

[GQman2121]

He makes not one good, or even remotely original point at all. He comes off sounding like a whining little bitch actually.

[TunaLover]

LOL You think there will be more diverse games at $60 a pop that cannot be resold? Consumers will take less chances, and only buy "sure thing" games and we'll see even more sequels. Really, this guy's whole spiel makes no sense at all.

Yeah, this measure will affect new IPs and indy games the most, because if you happen to buy a sucky game then you have to deal with it, no way to resell it, better luck next time. People will flock only sure things like games.

[TheMan]

He makes not one good, or even remotely original point at all. He comes off sounding like a wining little bitch actually.

does he really? He's trying to be realistic about the situation. It is important to please customers, but companies exist only to make money. He's just explaining the rock and the hard place between which he finds himself.

[Schwowsers]

"So on the positive side you could see more games being created because of this, and also more new IPs, because there'd be a bigger market for games that don't have for instance multiplayer. There could be awesome single player-only games, which you can't really do these days because people just pirate them, which is sad.

I know that for me, personally, I will be more hesistant than ever to try out a new IP if I don't have the opportunity to resell a dud. In fact, I could see this giving people more motivation to pirate. Hopefully the rumors aren't true and the death of used games, while inevitable, is still far off. If the new consoles do implement anti-used game measures, though, it'll at least be interesting to see how it affects sales and the buying habits of the masses.

[Opiate]

Sometimes people espouse selfish, self serving policies and beliefs. However, people rarely like to admit that they are espousing beliefs which others might find selfish or even immoral; and so, people do mental summersaults to convince themselves that their behavior is appropriate and moral, even in cases where it obviously isn't.

This behavior is not limited to small things. Even in very big cases, dealing with issues which should be clear and absolute, people do this. Racists in the United States, for example, worked very hard to explain why it was better for everyone that the races stay separate, that blacks not congregate with whites, and so forth; they didn't just espouse those beliefs, they actually convinced themselves that their behavior was the moral, right thing to do. Mixing of races was not natural, violence would erupt, and so to keep everyone safe we needed to make sure everyone was kept apart.

In comparison to that monumental feat, convincing yourself that it's fair and right to eliminate sales of used video games is a miniscule achievement of the human psyche.

[Chinpoko_Master]

Aren't there people who buy games new, finish them, resell them and then buy a new game with that money? Wont the publishers lose those people?

That's what I do.

If they're going to eliminate used games, they better offer some kind of alternative, like a digital rental or trial service. Otherwise, it's just a loss to me as a consumer.

[goodfella]

Who's going to buy a single player game when it is $60, with no option to resell it after completing it?

In comparison to that monumental feat, convincing yourself that it's fair and right to eliminate sales of used video games is a miniscule achievement of the human psyche.

Conversely, is it fair and right the people who fund/make the game don't make money when people play it?

[Corto]

They just want what's best for us.

[DR2K]

I'm sure that's why they're struggling.

Do we have sales on used games over the years?

[Garjon]

You know why all my friends bought MW2 and other games DICE/EA? It's because we would go over to each other's houses and play the game (in this instance CoD4); the friend, assuming they liked the game, would then buy it cheaply used and would then be excited for the sequel, becoming a day one consumer. Any sort of anti-used, online pass implementation kills that.

Also, on a more general note, when a company sells millions and tens of millions of copies of their games (BF, FIFA, Sims shit, NFS, MoH etc) and struggles to turn a profit, the problem surely lies with the administration of the company, not with their customers who exercise the right to buy/sell used games as they do with many of their own possessions.

[Plinko]

Yet another thing that leads me to believe this industry is headed for a major crash.

[TheSeks]

Patrick Bach is the same dude that said "well, input lag isn't important" despite the fact it took his company SIX DAMN MONTHS to even put a quick-fix in which still doesn't solve the issue for most people and thus will take TEN MONTHS FROM LAUNCH to fully solve. So, as much as I love you DICE: Fuck you. If you follow your EA masters into a no-used-sales process, you can count me out of your series. You and Criterion at the only two companies at EA I give a damn about but it's getting REALLY easy for me to not care for either of you.

[Tymerend]

I'm rather anti-excited about the upcoming generation as it is. The possibility of measures against used games only makes me dread it more.

I buy the occasional used game. I feel no guilt about it, I buy used cars too. Most of my game purchases are done new, but I need a place to ditch them when I'm done. Currently, they get traded in to buy more new games. If there exists no way for me to do this, I'll buy fewer games, or not even upgrade at all when the new generation is here.

Again, it's obviously used games hurting publishers and not stupidly high budgets. Blaming your consumer is always a great tactic.

[kuroshiki]

Who's going to buy a single player game when it is $60, with no option to resell it after completing it?

"raises hand"

If it is so good, not only I will pay $60, I will buy 3. No BS.

But if every game is $29.99, then yeah, fuck used games or reselling them. I will keep them all.

[Opiate]

Conversely, is it fair and right the people who fund/make the game don't make money when people play it?

Yes, absolutely. First, this is how it works in essentially all other industries known to man. I can sell my copy of Unforgiven to a friend and give no money to the movie studio. I can sell my car on Craig's List and give no money to Honda.

Second, the intrinsic principle of ownership is that I own the thing I have purchased. I can do what I want with it, including smashing it to pieces the second I purchase it, or selling it to another person.

These property rights are very well established in a wide variety of industries. It isn't like I'm espousing radical new laws here.

[Seventy_X_Seven]

"it's about trying to create some benefits for consumers" lol Yeah game companies, keep avoiding all the real issues while putting more barriers and obstacle to consumers.

Believe it or not game companies aren't out to get you. You laugh at that quote, but I mean what do you expect them to do? Creating benefits for consumers isn't hard, they could just give away everything for free and never charge you a dime. But then they'd go broke and not be able to make anything else. When they say trying to create some benefits for consumers they mean creating benefits while still being financially smart.

Anyways I don't really care to hear what DICE has to say on this since they aren't the ones making the decisions. Get back to work on BF2143 and Mirror's Edge 2!

Aren't there people who buy games new, finish them, resell them and then buy a new game with that money? Wont the publishers lose those people?

If you buy a new game, sell it, and then buy another game by the same publisher it sounds like a net zero gain. I mean there's really no difference in that and buying one game, never selling it and never buying another game.

[Fersis]

Why is Bach the interim CEO? What happened with L_Twin?

[Somnid]

I wonder how much they all have wasted on DRM and other shitty solutions (game companies in general). Imagine them jumping on the Steam wagon, 10 years ago.

Steam is DRM-ware. It's not stupid DRM-ware and they have done a great deal to sugar-coat it into something you want to use but that DRM has made Valve a lot of money. It's a case on why this doesn't have to be shit, but you need someone with vision to make it work well and I'm not seeing much of that.

[Elginer]

Aren't there people who buy games new, finish them, resell them and then buy a new game with that money? Wont the publishers lose those people?

Bingo. I know that's what I do but according to the game industry I'm a horrible person. If I didn't make anything on those games, guess what? I wouldn't buy so many new games and risk getting new IPs like Amalur.

[EYEL1NER]

"because a lot of companies making games today are struggling based on second-hand sales." I'm sure that's why they're struggling.

I read the thread title and thought "Ha, so there ARE some people in the industry that 'get it,' at least partly.
Then I saw that comment and realized the guy has no clue.
Then I got to the part about there being more unique and diverse games and decided he needs to just keep his mouth shut and tell someone to start in Mirror's Edge 2.

[Brashnir]

Conversely, is it fair and right the people who fund/make the game don't make money when people play it?

They make money on the initial sale, just like every other entertainment medium in existence. They should look at used game sales as advertisement, which in fact, they are.

There was a time when baseball owners refused to let their games be aired on radio, since radio customers didn't pay. Then they found out that radio listeners became fans and their attendance increased. Years later, they resisted letting games be shown on TV, again, since they didn't want to let people see the games for free. Once televised games became common, attendance exploded again.

Now, sports owners get both huge revenue AND huge advertising from televised games, now that they realize that the consuming public isn't an enemy to be feared.

[BobLoblaw]

I sure wish we had some solid numbers from Gamestop and other big used game sellers about how many used games they've sold and what timeframe they sold them in (going back about 4-5 years). We need some serious analysis on the actual impact of used game vs new game sales in addition to how much the developer loss (based on metrics NOT assuming that everyone would've bought the game brand new). I keep hearing one side complain about how much it reduces a developer's revenue and the other side complain about how much games cost. Facts. We need them.

[scitek]

When are these fucking idiots going to realize they make products aimed at people with a marginal amount of disposable income at best? You're not going to help yourselves by getting rid of something they depend on to keep buying new games. Instead, the people that rely on trade-ins will just buy fewer games and play them more, and if yours is not a game they're 100% sure they'll like, it's not going to be bought.

[east of eastside]

I'm pro anti-used as it targets gaming's underclass it will be good for hardcore gaming.

[SovanJedi]

Sometimes people espouse selfish, self serving policies and beliefs. However, people rarely like to admit that they are espousing beliefs which others might find selfish or even immoral; and so, people do mental summersaults to convince themselves that their behavior is appropriate and moral, even in cases where it obviously isn't. This behavior is not limited to small things. Even in very big cases, dealing with issues which should be clear and absolute, people do this. Racists in the United States, for example, worked very hard to explain why it was better for everyone that the races stay separate, that blacks not congregate with whites, and so forth; they didn't just espouse those beliefs, they actually convinced themselves that their behavior was the moral, right thing to do. Mixing of races was not natural, violence would erupt, and so to keep everyone safe we needed to make sure everyone was kept apart. In comparison to that monumental feat, convincing yourself that it's fair and right to eliminate sales of used video games is a miniscule achievement of the human psyche.

Exactly.

This whole movement of games companies blaming all their recent financial woes on used game sales is an absolute travesty. Hey EA, why not spend less of your cash sending copies of your new game into outer space as a publicity stunt that people only talk about for a week, and not expect customers to have to foot the bill by paying top whack for a new game which has no resale value, isn't complete and will have most of its features lost or shut down in a year or denied to us because of which retail outlet we decide to buy it from? You can't seriously look at this business model you've herded yourselves into and think that it has any foundation of success the way it is, and flail about trying to punish the customers because OH NO IT'S ALL THEIR FAULT, we must prevent them from having any freedom with their purchases. Yet, here we are with our draconian DRMs and Online Passes and design processes appealing to the largest, most braindead population possible without any sort of style or substance or lasting appeal. You're not even making games anymore, you're just printing interactive game trailers to disc and flinging boxes of them out of your top window and seeing which uninterested punter it hits in the head first. Hell the way you're all going, games might as well be as disposable as that.

Remember when you could buy a game and just... owned it? And you kept on owning it, and you could play it five years, ten years down the line and it would be the same as it was the day you got it? Or you found a copy at a car boot sale 20 years down the line, and you could play that on an NES you got off eBay? That's the kind of comfort games are to people. Why not try making something that people WANT to hold onto or seek out for decades to come? Ever thought about that, game developers?

[Seventy_X_Seven]

"raises hand" If it is so good, not only I will pay $60, I will buy 3. No BS. But if every game is $29.99, then yeah, fuck used games or reselling them. I will keep them all.

Well, no offense, but that sounds pretty stupid. How long does it take to beat a singleplayer game? A weekend? That means even if I don't have some convenient renting service like GameFly I could just go to Redbox and rent it for the weekend for $6 ($2/day). If I wanted to play it again I would just rent it again for another $6. So in order to justify buying the game new at $60 I'd have to plan to play the game more than 10 times.

I don't know, maybe you spend more time on singleplayer games than I do but I could never justify playing full price for a singleplayer only game.

[Nibel]

New IPs?

Yeah right. So many storytellers in this industry that it makes me wonder why most of their games have shitty stories.

[Plinko]

I'm pro anti-used as it targets gaming's underclass it will be good for hardcore gaming.

This makes absolutely no sense, unless you mean that it will drive so many people away from the industry only the "hardcore" will still be buying games.

[1-D_FTW]

It really does encapsulate just how much they don't get it.

Online games don't sell well because they're anti-used by nature. They sell well because they have value that justifies 60 dollars. That they can completely miss the lesson means the big publishers will be exclusively AAA in the future. You can't fix the problem if you don't understand what the root problem is.

[NullPointer]

Steam is DRM-ware. It's not stupid DRM-ware and they have done a great deal to sugar-coat it into something you want to use but that DRM has made Valve a lot of money. It's a case on why this doesn't have to be shit, but you need someone with vision to make it work well and I'm not seeing much of that.

Yeah, its called making a better mousetrap, something that's been replaced nowadays with "blame everybody else for your woes", and "eliminate features, lock customers into your ecosystem and raise prices".

There are creative solutions, but you have to stop looking at customers as the enemy.

[east of eastside]

This makes absolutely no sense, unless you mean that it will drive so many people away from the industry only the "hardcore" will still be buying games.

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

[-PXG-]

I almost want these dumb fucks to implement such a system into the new consoles just to see what kind of stupid excused they will come up with next.

[TheMan]

Well, no offense, but that sounds pretty stupid. How long does it take to beat a singleplayer game? A weekend? That means even if I don't have some convenient renting service like GameFly I could just go to Redbox and rent it for the weekend for $6 ($2/day). If I wanted to play it again I would just rent it again for another $6. So in order to justify buying the game new at $60 I'd have to plan to play the game more than 10 times. I don't know, maybe you spend more time on singleplayer games than I do but I could never justify playing full price for a singleplayer only game.

most rpg's take a lot longer than a weekend to beat...

[Opiate]

Exactly. This whole movement of games companies blaming all their recent financial woes on used game sales is an absolute travesty. Hey EA, why not spend less of your cash sending copies of your new game into outer space as a publicity stunt that people only talk about for a week, and not expect customers to have to foot the bill by paying top whack for a new game which has no resale value, isn't complete and will have most of its features lost or shut down in a year or denied to us because of which retail outlet we decide to buy it from? You can't seriously look at this business model you've herded yourselves into and think that it has any foundation of success the way it is, and flail about trying to punish the customers because OH NO IT'S ALL THEIR FAULT, we must prevent them from having any freedom with their purchases. Yet, here we are with our draconian DRMs and Online Passes and design processes appealing to the largest, most braindead population possible without any sort of style or substance or lasting appeal. You're not even making games anymore, you're just printing interactive game trailers to disc and flinging boxes of them out of your top window and seeing which uninterested punter it hits in the head first. Hell the way you're all going, games might as well be as disposable as that. Remember when you could buy a game and just... owned it? And you kept on owning it, and you could play it five years, ten years down the line and it would be the same as it was the day you got it? Or you found a copy at a car boot sale 20 years down the line, and you could play that on an NES you got off eBay? That's the kind of comfort games are to people. Why not try making something that people WANT to hold onto or seek out for decades to come? Ever thought about that, game developers?

I feel it's important to note that Publishers do not put all of the blame on used game sales. They also blame piracy and the economy, among a few others.

The common thread amongst these culprits is that they are all caused by things outside of EA/Activision/Ubisoft's control. They can't control used game sales; that's Gamestop's fault. They can't control piracy; that's the evil, anonymous pirate's fault. They can't control the economy; that's society's fault at large. And thus major companies doing poorly make it clear that their troubles are not their fault, and certainly not a consequence of poor management or bad business choices. They are the fault of exogenous forces they cannot control, among which used games are one big example, but not the only one.

I would go so far as to say they would blame anything other than themselves for their problems, whether it be Gamestop, game consumers, or society at large. I also would like to point out that game companies are not the only entities which do this, as humans generally do this all the time -- nobody likes to be blamed for disastrous situations -- and rarely are people in situations where they have high paying executive positions in major companies where job security relies on convincing everyone they are making good calls.

[BHK3]

When they've managed to kill the used market, causing a huge dent in new sales and hurting the overall market... ...they'll just blame Apple. And everyone will believe it.

or the handheld market.

[Seventy_X_Seven]

most rpg's take a lot longer than a weekend to beat...

RPGs sure but not many other singleplayer only games in other genres.