Support NeoGAF

[ReyBrujo]

Although you have a valid point, Why are you so sure the trade in price goes down?

Because these are exceptions and not the norm. If you could choose between buying the 2010 version that requires you to buy an online pass and (say) the 2009 version that doesn't, or the competence game that still doesn't implement it, its price is hurt by the comparison.

Probably once all games implement similar features the prices will stabilize.

Yeah, fair points, but you can buy a used car several years old and have everything working fine. Just because some cars have degraded does not mean all used cars have.

The maintenance costs for a used car are expected to be different from a new one. In terms of games, such costs don't exist. A car can work but have several problems, some of which require immediate fix or not. A game either works or not. Lacking the case or manual doesn't make the game less useful.

 

[krazen]

It doesn't really.

To extend this to cars, we'd have to assume that all cars were indestructible and never required maintenance and never experienced wear or tear, but car vendors beat out your headlights and steal your stereo if you went to bring it to a dealership. At that point, you've got an analogy that's vastly less plausible and more complicated than the situation being described, which means it's not an apt analogy.



This correctly highlights the difference between physical used goods and digital used goods. Digital used goods don't degrade. As a result, the primary thing that stops used goods trades from overwhelming new goods trade in other industries, that used goods are physically inferior and will continue to lose value with continued use, isn't present for games.

There are two ways you can look at the implications of this. One is consumer friendly, one is producer friendly:
1) Because digital used goods don't degrade, producers should in some way penalize consumers to buy them by forcing the goods to degrade artificially. As a result, digital used goods can be treated like physical used goods, and producers can effectively control the used market.

2) Because digital used goods don't degrade, consumers should be able to benefit from the fact that technology has made resale and used goods a more attractive process for them. As a result, consumers can pay less and get more and maintain much higher resale values for products they buy.

Stumpokapow id even argue that digital goods 'DO' degrade(at least with worth). With a sequel heavy and the 'newer is better' ideology of the videogame market, for the most part most games lose value over time; 60 bucks initially, after a period of time the vendor lowers the price to help move units after the initial rush and to compete with the newer games released since then (40 bucks) and then eventually a sequel gets released and the game is now worth a small amount of what it was initially.

Not to bring up a whole other related argument, imho the used market really effects them arguably early in the first few months: where the games are being sold at their retail values but the vendor undercuts them by offering it used for a few dollars cheaper. Which brings to question: why are people so amped to sell a game that they've only had for a month?

 

[Cornbread78]

I was damn excited for WKC2 and it was day 1 for me but now.. fuck you Sony. Won't buy just to rebel against this crap.

That doesn't make any sense, if you were buying it day 1, it would effect you anyhow?

This isn't just a Sony issue, almost all publishers will be doing this shortly, blame Gamestop/Amazon/E-Bay for not giving any type of risidual to the publishers if you really want to get nit-picky. I'm not saying I like it, but it's the truth.

It sucks that, basically, all shooters will have next to no secondary market value going forward, but most action/adventure games will be unaffected as well as most platformers. I'm definately not an apologist to the pubs. but you can see why they do this. Seriously, software companies started doing this years ago, why should consoles be much different? Again, t does suck, but it's part of the changing world of games...

oh and BTW


WKC2 day 1 baby, it just might be another year before is hits NA, LOL.

 

[MrPing1000]

Only yourselves to blame console gamers.

 

[Castor Krieg]

Unless you show me s stat backed by the industry and people all around the world,where they openly say that they would not buy a game full price if there was no use games market,you are speculating 10 times more than me,piracy and used sales market are 2 different things,even that both hurt the industry.

Why less games sold tell.?

Why in would that happen,if any sales will lower will be the use games ones,since those that bough a game new,can still give those games in trade in,is not like they will stop giving those in trade in,because the person who get it next has to pay a fee,they don't care people who buy their games and give them in trade in,will continue to do so after all the charge is not been apply to those who buy the game new.

I play my games at my own leisure. If I buy game new I try to finish it quickly so that I can get a good resale price. If I know now that to fully enjoy the game I need to use the code, and thus resale value will be lower I will wait to buy the game new to compensate me for the loss in resale value. Using absolute numbers that would be 10$ if the licence is 10$ as well. Ofc that assumes the re-sale value doesn't drop as time passes (and it does). Thus the time where I buy a game new is put even more in the future. Most likely I will buy games at 30USD price point knowing that I cannot re-sell them/will get a low re-sell price.

 

[Paracelsus]

If I want to try a game that's mediocre or average at best I get it knowing that I can sell it, just like I did with WKC. If I can't sell it then I just skip it and wait for better games that are worth keeping.

This means that even if ME3 is going to pull another Cerberus network on us, I'll still get it, while I won't even bother looking at WKC2 ever again.

Luckily there aren't many Japanese rpgs suitable for such bullshits on homeconsoles.

 

[JudgeN]

Only yourselves to blame console gamers.

Wat? I always bought all my games new anyway, again not always day 1 but I made damn sure they were new. Never understood the point of buying used, ill just wait for sales/official price drops.

WKC seems to be weird, if I remember correctly the first game charged 4.99 (I think) for a one time key to change the experience of your avatar. Don't think this is Sony doing, this is all L5 shit.

 

[H_Prestige]

Only yourselves to blame console gamers.

.

Gamers are the real problem here. They allow publishers to get away with this stuff.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Yeah, fair points, but you can buy a used car several years old and have everything working fine. Just because some cars have degraded does not mean all used cars have.

That's absolutely not true. If you buy a car that is a few years old, it might not need immediate repairs, but each part is closer to its end of life and the time-value of money dictates that repairs later are economically better for you than repairs sooner. That's why used cars keep being worth less and less. Tires only last so long, batteries only last so long, engines only last so long, chassis only take so long to rust.

There's an inverse correlation between mileage and price. Literally the exact same car that's the exact same age that looks the exact same and has the exact same parts and all parts appear to work will be worth substantially less if it has, for example, double the mileage.

Have you ever bought or sold a car?

This is not true for games because 99.9% of all consumers will never experience repair or replacement costs for any game they ever buy, especially since retailers refund games that require repairs and don't take trades of games that require repairs.

In Australia, EB (the same company as GS, I believe) sells games for less if they have no manual.

Fine, but it's moot anyway because even ascribing a fixed amount of value to the "physical" contents of the purchase, by far and away what you are buying is a digital good, which does not degrade. A disc is a disc is a disc. Some have scratches, but unless those scratches interfere with gameplay, they don't change the effective product you're buying. If those scratches interfere with gameplay, the product is instantly with nothing and not saleable.

Edit: Also, GS is not the only used retailer, and most people would expect to pay less with no manual. Or I could be wrong there, that is pure assumption on my part.

This is not the case in North America.

Stumpokapow id even argue that digital goods 'DO' degrade(at least with worth). With a sequel heavy and the 'newer is better' ideology of the videogame market, for the most part most games lose value over time; 60 bucks initially, after a period of time the vendor lowers the price to help move units after the initial rush and to compete with the newer games released since then (40 bucks) and then eventually a sequel gets released and the game is now worth a small amount of what it was initially.

Yes, absolutely, you're correct. I was aware of that but I was sort of intentionally avoiding referencing it because it's not the same eocnomic process. The value of games degrade. But it's not based on a degradation of the good, it's based on a degradation of the concept. This affects new games as well; Madden 06, brand new, sealed in package, has degraded in price the exact same way a copy of Madden 06 that's been sold and resold 100 times*

This is the distinction between physical and digital goods; physical goods degrade through use, digital goods don't degrade, although they may be valued less creatively.

Which brings to question: why are people so amped to sell a game that they've only had for a month?

It is weird when someone buys a game for $70 and trades it for $40 5 days later instead of doing a $10 rental, I'll admit. In Japan this is not an issue because rentals are illegal** and used copies often get >=80% of their value in trade credit, but in North America it really is kind of surreal.

*: Eventually sealed games spike in value for collectors, but that's a different market with a different equilibrium than the actual consumption market for games
**: Mostly, in the sense that there's no practical rental market for games.

 

[ReyBrujo]

There is another point that hasn't been discussed so far (probably because we are talking about PlayStation 3 which hasn't been hacked yet). This opens the door for companies to profit from piracy. If someone downloads a game, he could "enter" the legal circuit by buying the online code.

Again, this doesn't affect the PS3 for the time being, but for the other consoles and PC gaming, it is a possibility (at least until the hackers discover the code generation routines).

 

[linkboy]

That doesn't make any sense, if you were buying it day 1, it would effect you anyhow?

This isn't just a Sony issue, almost all publishers will be doing this shortly, blame Gamestop/Amazon/E-Bay for not giving any type of risidual to the publishers if you really want to get nit-picky. I'm not saying I like it, but it's the truth.

It sucks that, basically, all shooters will have next to no secondary market value going forward, but most action/adventure games will be unaffected as well as most platformers. I'm definately not an apologist to the pubs. but you can see why they do this. Seriously, software companies started doing this years ago, why should consoles be much different? Again, t does suck, but it's part of the changing world of games...

oh and BTW


WKC2 day 1 baby, it just might be another year before is hits NA, LOL.

The next logical step is to move this to new games. Publishers can't accomplish that unless they get consumers used to it first.

There's going to be a logical progression to this

Phase 1
Introduce the code via the used game market, thus getting consumers used to paying it

Phase 2
Move this to new games

If you really don't think someone like Kotick will try that, you're naive.

That's how it impacts someone who buys it new. Its a slippery slope that's only going to get worse.

Publishers already have us paying for content that's on the disc we buy, this is just the next step in that.

 

[Castor Krieg]

It is weird when someone buys a game for $70 and trades it for $40 5 days later instead of doing a $10 rental, I'll admit. In Japan this is not an issue because rentals are illegal** and used copies often get >=80% of their value in trade credit, but in North America it really is kind of surreal.

In Poland there is no rental market for games. I didn't see it in France as well.

Kotick will try that, you're naive.

That's how it impacts someone who buys it new. Its a slippery slope that's only going to get worse.

Publishers already have us paying for content that's on the disc we buy, this is just the next step in that.

Most likely it will happen. Games will have expiry date or limitations on some of their components e.g. Call of Duty 7 boxed will come with 30-day multiplayer, if you play more than that you will have to pay.

 

[Stumpokapow]

There is another point that hasn't been discussed so far (probably because we are talking about PlayStation 3 which hasn't been hacked yet). This opens the door for companies to profit from piracy. If someone downloads a game, he could "enter" the legal circuit by buying the online code.

This was explicitly mentioned by a few company executives actually. IIRC Ricitiello made this argument about being able to sell map packs to pirates, particularly in the context of countries where piracy is the primary mode of consumption (SE Asia, India, South America).

The problem becomes that pirated games require console modifications, console modifications theoretically lead to being banned from online services, and that thus reduces the incentive to pay for additional content. Also, DLC itself can eventually be pirated, so this only impacts the period in between games being pirateable and DLC being pirateable.

But on PC at least, I'm sure they derive some benefit from it.

In Poland there is no rental market for games. I didn't see it in France as well.

Yeah, it varies from country to country. Sometimes it's a legal thing, sometimes it's a cultural thing. Blockbuster, in North America, has conditioned people to look at movie rentals as a major option and this has filtered down to peoples conditioning for games as well.

One counter-trend is that Netflix has conditioned people that paying per rental is no longer acceptable, instead people are getting used to paying for temporal rental memberships, and the same thing has some traction in games with services like GameFly.

Either way, countries where there's no rental option are almost certainly likely to have higher trade-in values to compensate for the fact that more purchasers are likely going to want to flip the good than they would have in countries where rentals are an option.

 

[Dead Man]

That's absolutely not true. If you buy a car that is a few years old, it might not need immediate repairs, but each part is closer to its end of life and the time-value of money dictates that repairs later are economically better for you than repairs sooner. That's why used cars keep being worth less and less. Tires only last so long, batteries only last so long, engines only last so long, chassis only take so long to rust.

There's an inverse correlation between mileage and price. Literally the exact same car that's the exact same age that looks the exact same and has the exact same parts and all parts appear to work will be worth substantially less if it has, for example, double the mileage.

Have you ever bought or sold a car?

This is not true for games because 99.9% of all consumers will never experience repair or replacement costs for any game they ever buy, especially since retailers refund games that require repairs and don't take trades of games that require repairs.



Fine, but it's moot anyway because even ascribing a fixed amount of value to the "physical" contents of the purchase, by far and away what you are buying is a digital good, which does not degrade. A disc is a disc is a disc. Some have scratches, but unless those scratches interfere with gameplay, they don't change the effective product you're buying. If those scratches interfere with gameplay, the product is instantly with nothing and not saleable.



This is not the case in North America.

:lol Yes, many. I still maintain the end effect of price dropping due to being used in the case of a car, and being used or old in the case of a game is the same on the person buying the used product, regardless of the economic mechanism. I agree with almost everything you say, but disagree on the value of the analogy! But I'll leave it there since it is way too late here.

 

[alr1ght]

Wat? I always bought all my games new anyway, again not always day 1 but I made damn sure they were new. Never understood the point of buying used, ill just wait for sales/official price drops.

So you keep all of your games. Want to sell one of these code unlock games? Well, that game you just bought is worth less. Less money to buy new games.

 

[FINALFANTASYDOG]

Okay... In a perfect information world this should not be bad for consumers, you are correct we don't live in that world.. However give it time it should be interesting to look at trade in prices trends as more games adopt this model.

.

Stumpokawpa - Due to the previously stated Game companies have to buy back non-sell through games etc... there is no reason(in fact it's the opposite, there is reason for them to just throw the things in the backroom) for game stores to sell new copies of games if they have used copies. With walmart and others jumping on the wagon now

How exactly would you suggest game companies tackle game retailers(getting some of thoese record profits for themselves) other then making some type of difference between used games and new games? (I guess the best way would make the game $5 then just charge for DLC, but I have a feeling that would make people angry too.

With that I'm going to bed, it's been fun.

 

[Castor Krieg]

Stumpokawpa - Due to the previously stated Game companies have to buy back non-sell through games etc... there is almost no reason for game stores to push new copies of games if they have used copies.

Geeeeez, how about changing the law so that the publisher is not responsible if game's store fucked up their sale estimates?

 

[Cep]

There are very few things in this world that I like and playing shitty games with others is high on that list, so on one hand I really could not care any less about this game.

On the other had...Sony and EA can fuck off.

 

[mj1108]

Mark my words. Next gen, all console games will have product keys, just like PC games. When that happens, I'll tell this industry to kiss my black ass. It can piss the fuck off with that shit. I'll just find a new hobby.

I have a feeling this is where it's going. If it works for just the multitplayer aspect of a game, watch them start requiring a key just to play the game at all (and tie it to your XBL, PSN or Wii account) with the option to purchase a key if you don't have one.

 

[Calcaneus]

Every time these publishers face a problem, they always decide the solution is to screw the people who are buying their games. If this thing becomes widespread, borrowing games basically go out the window as a concept everywhere except handhelds.

Fuck that shit.

 

[oneHeero]

Why is everyone under the impression that there is no other way to get value from a used game other than going through gamestop? I use to always trade my games in to GS for something new, but atfer discovering the internet and craigslist/ebay, I no longer use GS for used games.

I can see this just pushing the used market away from GS, which would be great, and encourage people to try alternate routes of selling the game used. I.E. craigslist where instead of getting $30 trade in at GS u can sell it on CL for $40. If the key thing degrades the value of the game used, as its suggested to drop to $20 value trade in at GS, you can still go through CL and sell it for $30.

SIMPLE.

 

[Unbiased Basturd]

There's nothing wrong with this at all. You will get a license if you buy the game new, and if you don't you get to pay. It's only fair for developers and publishers.

Here's something wrong: You don't buy a game multiple times for the same household. However, each person in my household can have their own PSNs and would like their own trophies and such. I should only need to buy ONE game for ONE household. I know it's just a code in the situation here but the principle is ridiculous. It's as worse as a PC game that would allow only one install. It's shitting on paying customers.

 

[alr1ght]

Why is everyone under the impression that there is no other way to get value from a used game other than going through gamestop? I use to always trade my games in to GS for something new, but atfer discovering the internet and craigslist/ebay, I no longer use GS for used games.

I can see this just pushing the used market away from GS, which would be great, and encourage people to try alternate routes of selling the game used. I.E. craigslist where instead of getting $30 trade in at GS u can sell it on CL for $40. If the key thing degrades the value of the game used, as its suggested to drop to $20 value trade in at GS, you can still go through CL and sell it for $30.

SIMPLE.

I sell all of my games used (that I bought new OMG) on amazon marketplace. They will now be worth less. Just because it doesn't affect GS for me, doesn't mean it's okay. They are still worth less to me, the consumer.

 

[ReyBrujo]

This was explicitly mentioned by a few company executives actually.

I meant in this specific thread, my bad. I brought it up because I remembered such articles. However, I didn't consider the problem with Xbox where chipped consoles are banned.

Due to the previously stated Game companies have to buy back non-sell through games etc... there is no reason(in fact it's the opposite, there is reason for them to just throw the things in the backroom) for game stores to sell new copies of games if they have used copies.

I read stories (some in here) that when some games are rare (as in, low printing), GS actually opens their brand new copies and sells them as used because the used price is higher than the MSRP. Not sure if these stories are true, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.

 

[Castor Krieg]

I can see this just pushing the used market away from GS, which would be great, and encourage people to try alternate routes of selling the game used. I.E. craigslist where instead of getting $30 trade in at GS u can sell it on CL for $40. If the key thing degrades the value of the game used, as its suggested to drop to $20 value trade in at GS, you can still go through CL and sell it for $30.

SIMPLE.

In your example you get 10$ less. SIMPLE.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Stumpokawpa - Due to the previously stated Game companies have to buy back non-sell through games etc... there is almost no reason for game stores to push new copies of games if they have used copies. With walmart and others jumping on the wagon now

Correct.

How exactly would you suggest game companies tackle game retailers other then making some type of difference between used games and new games? (I guess the best way would make the game $5 then just charge for DLC, but I have a feeling that would make people angry too.

Like I said above, digital goods don't degrade so there's no natural brake peddle for used digital goods. So, knowing this, we have one of two options:

1) Because digital used goods don't degrade, producers should in some way penalize consumers to buy them by forcing the goods to degrade artificially. As a result, digital used goods can be treated like physical used goods, and producers can effectively control the used market.

2) Because digital used goods don't degrade, consumers should be able to benefit from the fact that technology has made resale and used goods a more attractive process for them. As a result, consumers can pay less and get more and maintain much higher resale values for products they buy.

I mean, look at Star Trek. They've got replicators, right. Little computer terminals where they say "Give me a coffee" and they get a coffee. If we had those in real life, people would say "Oh man, what are coffee companies gonna do?" and to some extent, it's like, deal with it. As a consumer, I'm far more inclined to let consumers take advantage of the new benefits they get from improving technology and a changing world than to encourage producers to purposefully handicap the benefits of technology.

It sucks for developers. What would I do? Well, I'd probably make smaller games instead of $100 million experiences! I'd lower the length of development cycles. I'd try selling direct to consumers through DD content--and yes, this means giving up spending millions on in-store placement and ad campaigns with Gamestop because it makes no sense to bite the hand that feeds. I'd offer physical collectors editions (which they do!). I'd introduce price stratifications so that AAA new titles were more expensive and lower tier new titles were cheaper. I'd do DLC addons (which are as monetized for used copies as they are for new). Basically, if you want the benefits of physical products, you have to sell a physical product. If you want to sell a digital product, you need to find a way to sell it that benefits you without having to kneecap the consumer.

I don't have a single answer that's going to satisfy every developer. I just know that companies worldwide throughout post-industrial revolution history have done better when they realize that they can't beat the march of progress, they can only adapt.

I meant in this specific thread, my bad. I brought it up because I remembered such articles.

No bad at all, it's a great point and it's good that you raised it because it's definitely part of the thought behind these systems and no one else talked about it.

I read stories (some in here) that when some games are rare (as in, low printing), GS actually opens their brand new copies and sells them as used because the used price is higher than the MSRP. Not sure if these stories are true, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.

This kind of thing is not uncommon in situations whereby there's pressure from manufacturers to keep MSRP caps in place. The same thing has historically happened with concert tickets where, often sneakily, concert ticket sellers have found ways to benefit from the secondary market of scalpers, but they can't do it overtly because the ticket prices are fixed to begin with.

 

[Cornbread78]

The next logical step is to move this to new games. Publishers can't accomplish that unless they get consumers used to it first.

There's going to be a logical progression to this

Phase 1
Introduce the code via the used game market, thus getting consumers used to paying it
Phase 2
Move this to new games
If you really don't think someone like Kotick will try that, you're naive.
That's how it impacts someone who buys it new. Its a slippery slope that's only going to get worse.
Publishers already have us paying for content that's on the disc we buy, this is just the next step in that.

In this circumstance, they are referring to adding the code for new games, there was no mention of charging for online play like Activision wants to do. That is a whole different arguement altogether. I'm referring to the resale of new games, and I can see why they do it. I do agree with the other sediments here that they should depreciate the charge for a 2nd code to go with the games though.

after 6mos. $5, after 1yr $2, after 18mos, no charge. That would make sense as well.

 

[linkboy]

In this circumstance, they are referring to adding the code for new games, there was no mention of charging for online play like Activision wants to do. That is a whole different arguement altogether. I'm referring to the resale of new games, and I can see why they do it. I do agree with the other sediments here that they should depreciate the charge for a 2nd code to go with the games though.

after 6mos. $5, after 1yr $2, after 18mos, no charge. That would make sense as well.

All I'm saying is the next step after charging for on-line with used games is to apply it to new purchases.

I'm not talking about Kotick's COD idea, I was just using him as an example.

I can defintely see EA moving this idea to new copies of Madden or any of their other sports games with new purchases.

 

[angelfly]

Sega did it first with PSO
EA revived it for the DLC-era
Now Sony is following suit with EA

I can't say I'm surprised by the companies doing this but I am surprised at the consuners who choose to defend it. I'll probably end up waiting until it's $20 used and pick it up. Not really concerned about the online portion.

 

[Polk]

To be fair to Sony, they actually did this before Online Pass was announced by having a $20 code for the newest SOCOM PSP. It's just that now this system has made its way to the PS3 as well.

I think, even before that Konami used one times codes for PS3 versions of Pro Evolution Soccer.

 

[-viper-]

If this such a huge issue then why do people buy PC games? Same shit.

 

[ReyBrujo]

This kind of thing is not uncommon in situations whereby there's pressure from manufacturers to keep MSRP caps in place.

Isn't there a mechanism in place where the publisher takes the hit if the store is forced to lower the prices of goods before a certain date? I am guessing these mechanisms aren't that widespread with the current economical situation, though.

The same thing has historically happened with concert tickets where, often sneakily, concert ticket sellers have found ways to benefit from the secondary market of scalpers, but they can't do it overtly because the ticket prices are fixed to begin with.

Yeah, I assist to two or three concerts per month (fortunately these are pretty niche groups, so I am not really affected), but when big popular groups arrive, their tickets are sold to hardcore fans and scalpers.

Reminds me of when Atlus joked about them printing few copies of games and selling them via eBay to get more profit.

 

[Wthermans]

IMHO licensing should be illegal. It'll never happen and there will even be consumers who defend it to the death, but it's an extremely anti-consumer practice that ethically vague. We don't "own" anything it seems anymore. We're simply given a license to temporarily use it. Sad state of the market that will be far too intrusive and convulated before anyone will even attempt to do anything about it.

 

[Durante]

Sega did it first with PSO
EA revived it for the DLC-era
Now Sony is following suit with EA

When I bought Starcraft a decade or so ago it came with a CD key.
I maintain that the only difference is that they now allow you to buy just the key. It's actually less restrictive!

 

[Tylahedras]

LoL ok...

I was gonna buy the game, not now.

 

[Cornbread78]

LoL ok...

I was gonna buy the game, not now.

Although the concept sucks, if you bought the game new it wouldn't affect you anyway, so....?

 

[angelfly]

When I bought Starcraft a decade or so ago it came with a CD key.
I maintain that the only difference is that they now allow you to buy just the key. It's actually less restrictive!

I'm talking just about consoles. The only reason they're allowing people to buy just the key is because they know it won't stop used sales but they want to at least try and extract some money from consumers who are willing to pay.

 

[McHuj]

Next gen, all console games will have product keys, just like PC games.

Then console game makers better be ready to deal with higher levels of piracy like on the PC.

Without a used game market, I think piracy will be higher. Fewer people will be able to afford games and will turn to piracy.

 

[alr1ght]

Although the concept sucks, if you bought the game new it wouldn't affect you anyway, so....?

:lol :lol :lol
Why are people defending this?

Want to sell the game (no code unlock) = you get $50
Want to sell the game (yes code unlock) = you get $45

You are paying the same amount for less product! Why is this so difficult to understand? That's less money to spend on new games. This is 100% bad for the consumer. It has zero benefit.

 

[Tylahedras]

Although the concept sucks, if you bought the game new it wouldn't affect you anyway, so....?

I don't do codes, I don't do them for EA and I'm not going to do them for level 5, or konami for that matter.

Put them in a game and you earn a no sale from me.

*The "LoL" part is because the game was pretty borderline anyway, it's not like I'm gonna wring my hands about missing it. I mean if you're going to do stupid crap you should do it with franchises that have some clout.

 

[Future]

Good. Fuck used sales not giving any money to devs.

I wish they could come up with a transfer system though. For people that want to let people borrow games. Seems like it would be easy to tie the license to a user ID/console, and give that user the ability to transfer it to a specific user. Used sales would still be screwed cuz the user wouldn't know who is buying it. But you could also lend it to other people as long as you know their user id

 

[alr1ght]

Good. Fuck used sales not giving any money to devs.

New sales will drop with no second hand market.

 

[Ninja-Matic]

I think of it this way - I sell my music on Amazon, iTunes, Lala, etc...

If someone buys my music - then tries reselling it without my permission. I sue the daylights out of them.

Simple.

EVERY penny that stores make from game sales go to the store - not the developer. They make an absolute KILLING.

How is re-selling something that you do not own the copyright to, but you're keeping 100% of the profits WITHOUT LICENSING, not a form of infringement?

I think it's good that devs are giving "perks" to people who buy the game new - it helps the gaming development community continue to thrive. Every time a used game is sold - that money is placed in the hands of the store and not the gaming industry (the part that matters, anyway).

A store can make hundreds of dollars on a single game while a developer only makes a small percentage of that first sale while the game is new.

I'm sorry - that's like me signing a record contract with a label that wants to give me 25% for the first 1 sale then ZILCH for every sale of an album thereafter.

FUCK

THAT

I wouldn't be making music if that were the fucking case.

 

[Ninja-Matic]

New sales will drop with no second hand market.

You're right - PC gaming does not exist.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[Castor Krieg]

You're right - PC gaming does not exist.

Tell me how many sales you have on Steam. Then tell me how many sales you see on XBL or PSS.

Good. Fuck used sales not giving any money to devs.

I don't know if you are clueless or just plain stupid. If you care about the devs so much send them a check for 10 000 USD, GTFO from my wallet.

 

[angelfly]

I think of it this way - I sell my music on Amazon, iTunes, Lala, etc...

If someone buys my music - then tries reselling it without my permission. I sue the daylights out of them.

Simple.

EVERY penny that stores make from game sales go to the store - not the developer. They make an absolute KILLING.

How is re-selling something that you do not own the copyright to, but you're keeping 100% of the profits WITHOUT LICENSING, not a form of infringement?

I think it's good that devs are giving "perks" to people who buy the game new - it helps the gaming development community continue to thrive. Every time a used game is sold - that money is placed in the hands of the store and not the gaming industry (the part that matters, anyway).

A store can make hundreds of dollars on a single game while a developer only makes a small percentage of that first sale while the game is new.

I'm sorry - that's like me signing a record contract with a label that wants to give me 25% for the first 1 sale then ZILCH for every sale of an album thereafter.

FUCK

THAT

I wouldn't be making music if that were the fucking case.

So you think people shouldn't people allowed to sell things they purchase? Wow

 

[H_Prestige]

I think of it this way - I sell my music on Amazon, iTunes, Lala, etc...

If someone buys my music - then tries reselling it without my permission. I sue the daylights out of them.

Simple.

EVERY penny that stores make from game sales go to the store - not the developer. They make an absolute KILLING.

How is re-selling something that you do not own the copyright to, but you're keeping 100% of the profits WITHOUT LICENSING, not a form of infringement?

I think it's good that devs are giving "perks" to people who buy the game new - it helps the gaming development community continue to thrive. Every time a used game is sold - that money is placed in the hands of the store and not the gaming industry (the part that matters, anyway).

A store can make hundreds of dollars on a single game while a developer only makes a small percentage of that first sale while the game is new.

I'm sorry - that's like me signing a record contract with a label that wants to give me 25% for the first 1 sale then ZILCH for every sale of an album thereafter.

FUCK

THAT

I wouldn't be making music if that were the fucking case.

The devs/publishers already got their money with the initial sale. They are not entitled to anything more than that.

And as has been pointed out several times, these devs/publishers don't give a flying shit about you if you are not satisfied with their product. They will not refund you. They don't care about your money so why the hell do you care about their's?

 

[Cornbread78]

:lol :lol :lol
Why are people defending this?

Want to sell the game (no code unlock) = you get $50
Want to sell the game (yes code unlock) = you get $45

You are paying the same amount for less product! Why is this so difficult to understand? That's less money to spend on new games. This is 100% bad for the consumer. It has zero benefit.

Not defending it at all, just staing people should say they are not going to buy a game NEW because of it.

Seiously, EVERY new game will have this soon. More of a realization than anything.

 

[sonicmj1]

I think of it this way - I sell my music on Amazon, iTunes, Lala, etc...

If someone buys my music - then tries reselling it without my permission. I sue the daylights out of them.

Simple.

EVERY penny that stores make from game sales go to the store - not the developer. They make an absolute KILLING.

How is re-selling something that you do not own the copyright to, but you're keeping 100% of the profits WITHOUT LICENSING, not a form of infringement?

I think it's good that devs are giving "perks" to people who buy the game new - it helps the gaming development community continue to thrive. Every time a used game is sold - that money is placed in the hands of the store and not the gaming industry (the part that matters, anyway).

A store can make hundreds of dollars on a single game while a developer only makes a small percentage of that first sale while the game is new.

I'm sorry - that's like me signing a record contract with a label that wants to give me 25% for the first 1 sale then ZILCH for every sale of an album thereafter.

FUCK

THAT

I wouldn't be making music if that were the fucking case.

Of course you sue the crap out of anyone who buys your album, burns a bunch of copies, and sells them.

But you make a practice of suing people who sell your CD to a used music store after they purchased it? Do you then go on to sue those stores when they've resold that CD to someone else? Do you sue someone who gives the CD to a friend of theirs?

This doesn't apply to strictly digital goods, of course (like things sold through the iTunes store), but consumers have the right to sell physical goods that they purchase. Stores that sell used albums have existed for a long time, but the music industry still managed to thrive for ages until digital piracy became a concern.

It's so strange how game companies take actions to harm Gamestop's used game market while supporting them directly as a business with preorder incentives and such. It's as though preorders are the only things they can think of that will get people to buy games new.

 

[McHuj]

I think of it this way - I sell my music on Amazon, iTunes, Lala, etc...

If someone buys my music - then tries reselling it without my permission. I sue the daylights out of them.

Actually you can buy plenty of "used" music of Amazon. Anything that's been sold on CD can be resold.

You're right - PC gaming does not exist.

I don't think you understand what he was saying. The market won't cease to exist, but it will get smaller because fewer people will be able to buy games.