Used games worse than piracy says developer

Co-founder of Blitz Game Studios, Andrew Oliver, has stated that the impact of used game sales are worse than piracy on consoles and is pushing developers towards releasing game content as digital downloads. The comment comes as EA describes "Project Ten Dollar" as a "positive consumer experience".

Speaking to Develop, Oliver said that figures suggesting that games are often sold on as many as four times mean that royalties for publishers and developers are effectively cut to 25%. Although Oliver says that he understands why players trade-in games, he believes that pre-owned games are now a "a much bigger problem than piracy on the main consoles".

Oliver added that the pre-owned business is now forcing publishers to use digital downloads more, either for full games or extra content.

Oliver's comments come as EA Games launches "Project Ten Dollar", which will require purchasers of used EA Sports games to pay $10 for an Online Pass so as to access multiplayer gameplay, beginning with the release of Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11.

According to EuroGamer, EA boss John Riccitiello said that he believes the new EA Sports Online Pass will be a "positive consumer experience" and that it will allow developers to continue work on an IP for longer.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Could new government kill UK Digital Economy Bill?

Next Story

TechSpot: Splinter Cell Conviction Performance In-depth

96 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Used games are indeed much worse than piracy, there is no doubt about it.
However, this is neither the buyer's nor the seller's problem.
It is up to the industry to figure out.

I have not got a game full price in years. I only buy when the game has come down to the $20 or less price range that is if I have not got it from usenet before then. As far as DLC I would never buy something that should have been included in the game in the first place and that is all DLC is.

I do pirate games and I've often thought the same thing. What is the difference to the developer between pirating a game and buying the game second hand? Turns out the only difference is that buying second hand is ok in the eyes of the law.

BigCheese said,
I do pirate games and I've often thought the same thing. What is the difference to the developer between pirating a game and buying the game second hand? Turns out the only difference is that buying second hand is ok in the eyes of the law.

But as a marketing viewpoint, pirates, they are not considered as a potential buyer, instead second hand buyers are potential buyer.

You know what, I think that SputnikGamer is the only one here with a calm head on. I don't believe in this strategy of charging again for used games players, but it makes complete sense in SputnikGamer's scenario.. I was pretty hostile about this before his comments, but I have to be honest; they make sense.

Nah, can't compare this to the car industry, for the simple reason that car producers continue to profit with spare parts.

And giving just a little credit to the game publishers, picture it this way... If the publisher sold say 10 games before the 'used game boom' now they sell like 5, because the other 5 ppl wait to get it used at a smaller price.

Anyway, this blows... And affects me twice, one for me and one for my son (yes we both have separate xboxes ).

The digital distribution model would solve this and would have worked much better if publishers weren't charging the exact same price for a download-only edition as for a packaged version off the shelf with media and manual.

I'm looking at you, Blizzard, you greedy farking asswipes.

EA just lost it's access to my wallet.

Why not just STFU and do your job of developing and publishing games.

EA. Dog **** on the sidewalk... What's the difference.

these publishers that say that used games are worse than piracy, wow now thats just a load of BS, a used game makes profit wheras piracy does not which is what they want if profit,don't blame piracy for you publishers faults, instead of going just for the money, you should focus on quality, to me quality is better than money and of course it costs to make the content n all so give all a break and stop gouging everyone. be glad that your at least getting something.

too bad that the ability to trade in, trade up and buy and sell used games is one of the biggest factors that drives sales of new games from stores like gamestop.
this also hurts parents that expect full functionalty for every member of their family that would obviously have their own gamertag on the family console. when little sister finds out she can't play multiplayer on teh new game without paying an extra $10, how willing is dad going to be to spend cash on teh next game with crippled online support?
on the other hand it's about time consoles felt the pain PC gamers have been dealing with for years now.

I don't understand why they need to have money from game what i'm gonna sell to other person. I already bought game and payed full price for that. If they bring "Project Ten Dollar" on there games that means no EA games for me. I don't think it is piracy if i already payed for that and other person paying me for that game. So f*** "Project Ten Dollar".

Dear Andy,

If you make games good enough, people won't want to sell them after they buy them.


I still have a collection of 8-bit and 16-bit console games that I wouldn't dare get rid of.

WE AREN'T MAKING ENOUGH MONEY! BLAME THE CONSUMERS, THAT WILL MAKE THEM WANT OUR STUFF MORE! YOU STUPID CONSUMERS, STOP BUYING USED GAMES AND MAKING US POOR! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU! WE WILL HAVE TO CHARGE YOU MORE FOR BEING SO MEAN TO US!
Gotta love their way of thinking, blame someone else, not themselves. Because we all know failure is always due to someone else, not ourselves.

I've been hearing this stuff since I bought my first Atari 800 computer. I've NEVER stole a game or downloaded a game from a torrent. I heard that the Atari series of computers had a bad rep for people stealing software (but strangely enough I remember Central Point Software making Copy II PC, Copy II 64/128 and Copy II Plus for PC-compatibles, Commodore 64/128 and Apple II computers...).

I've always paid for my software. I never liked it when a company decides that they can charge a premium for a program (I'm looking at you Activision for Modern Warfare 2) but I believe people can decide whether or not a program is worth paying for. A lot of the games sold in the used marketplace are older versions of a once-popular title or programs that didn't sell all that well. If I look on the shelves of a Half Price Book Store I will generally see a lot of titles that were surplus stock from local electronics stores. In some cases the original sticker from that retailer will still be on the box. So is it better that the company makes some money from the sale of a title, even discounted rather than make NO money on a product that didn't sale? People may be willing to buy a title for $10 or $20 dollars months (or years) later that they wouldn't be willing to pay $40 or $50 dollars when it's new. And if someone buys an old game, there's a chance they might like it enough to buy the sequel when it comes out later on.

I've also never resold ANY of my old games. I still have all of my Atari 2600, Sega Genesis, Saturn, Dreamcast, N64, Vectrex, TurboGraphix16, Playstation and Playstation 2 games I've acquired over the years. I didn't trade in my old systems when I upgraded to the next generation . I agree that getting next to nothing at GameStop doesn't make any sense. But for people who want to sell their old games I don't see that it's as bad as the game developers claim. They're probably not gonna lose as many sales as they claim - people don't want to pay more than they have to.

Now we're looking at the prospect of game developers looking for online distribution of their games through systems like Steam or Impulse (or directly from the company). But once again they're going to find that people only have so much money to spend. If you have a class-A title, then you're probably going to be able to charge more than some unknown company. But only so many people are going to be willing to pay the full price. How many games (especially CATALOG titles) are sold for a discounted price through Steam or Impulse on a given weekend? Many of these titles aren't even available in retail any longer so the ONLY way the gamer can get this title is online.

What a load of garbage. They're not losing near the market share they think. The clients who bought the game used for 10$ probably isn't the one who buys games new or is willing to pay full price for it... Can no one understand business these days?

Tiger Woods Golfâ€"hmmmm. Does it come with a cheat on your wife mode, and does it include a mode for crashing your "Caddie" into trees. Maybe it has a mode for crazy wife coming after you with a nine iron mode.

Don't play games on my computer, nor buy them, albeit back in the 80's when cartridge games were the big thing my kids would buy and sale games all the time. Don't remember reading about the game developers having problem with that scenario, so what would be the difference other then the online thing.

Makes sense to me.

Pirates: NEVER going to pay in the first place. No lost sale.

Used game buyer: Obviously is willing to pay. Just none of the money goes to the developer. Possibly one of those ACTUAL lost sales publishers complain about.

GameStop is also a ripoff company that profits heavily from this. They give a gamer $5-$20 for a "new" game, then turn around and sell it for $30-$50. Cheap gamers looking to buy used are presented with a $60 unused game, or a $50 "previously played" game. Very little savings for the end-user. GameStop makes nothing on the $60 game, so will push the used game like crazy, which makes nothing for the publisher.

Xenomorph said,
Makes sense to me.
Pirates: NEVER going to pay in the first place. No lost sale.

It's a loss of a potential sales though. That's a huge loss.

schiz-o-phren-ic said,

It's a loss of a potential sales though. That's a huge loss.

If a game/app comes out and my first thought is, "I'll just download it.", it was never a potential sale and would never have been. Can I claim on my income taxes that I had a $5 million loss because I expected to make that much, but didn't? Hardly. What a company expected to make cannot be called a loss because they didn't have that money to being with.

I'm sick of everybody moaning at everything they can get an extra few quid from :-|
Everything is for your pockets, no longer the consumer.
If buying used games is too much of a problem we should just go to the apparent lesser of two evils .

Plus that is stupid, when you sell a game you finished normally you go out and buy new ones....
Not everyone will spend 80.- on a new game every week.
****ing jerks.
If they made games that last more than a few hours probably ppl would not sell them so fast.
Remember when you used to buy a game and play it for months ? (around Y2K)
Damn, i remember with the first BF1942 and the entire series. I had all of them. Countless hours playing.
Operation Flashpoint 1, IL2, BFs....those were real games.

Krpano said,
Plus that is stupid, when you sell a game you finished normally you go out and buy new ones....
Not everyone will spend 80.- on a new game every week.
****ing jerks.
If they made games that last more than a few hours probably ppl would not sell them so fast.
Remember when you used to buy a game and play it for months ? (around Y2K)
Damn, i remember with the first BF1942 and the entire series. I had all of them. Countless hours playing.
Operation Flashpoint 1, IL2, BFs....those were real games.

Thats the problem these days though. All the games you listed, who hosted the servers. Users or the company? When users host the server, they are handling the cost of keeping the game going. All the games these days have their servers on some system. People fail to realize that there isn't some magic place out there where fairies make the internet work. It all costs money. You don't pay for Xbox live to host servers. You pay for Xbox to connect you to servers that are hosted by the companies who made the game. The companies have to pay for those servers to be kept turned on and if games keep changing hands, that cost comes from the profits when the game was first sold. I am surprised they only lose 25% with some of the more popular games.

Anyone will agree that spending 50+ for a new game is retarded but can't really expect anything different when these companies are making games that are being played by thousands of people at a time. I use to only be hundreds. Someone has to pay for the extra bandwidth and electricity costs.

SputnikGamer said,

Thats the problem these days though. All the games you listed, who hosted the servers. Users or the company? When users host the server, they are handling the cost of keeping the game going. All the games these days have their servers on some system. People fail to realize that there isn't some magic place out there where fairies make the internet work. It all costs money. You don't pay for Xbox live to host servers. You pay for Xbox to connect you to servers that are hosted by the companies who made the game. The companies have to pay for those servers to be kept turned on and if games keep changing hands, that cost comes from the profits when the game was first sold. I am surprised they only lose 25% with some of the more popular games.

Anyone will agree that spending 50+ for a new game is retarded but can't really expect anything different when these companies are making games that are being played by thousands of people at a time. I use to only be hundreds. Someone has to pay for the extra bandwidth and electricity costs.

I do not see your point: I buy a game and in the price I pay for it both bandwith and electricity are included; After a while I sell my game and someone else will play it. It is still the same game for which both bandwith and electricity related costs were paid upfront....

Fritzly said,

I do not see your point: I buy a game and in the price I pay for it both bandwith and electricity are included; After a while I sell my game and someone else will play it. It is still the same game for which both bandwith and electricity related costs were paid upfront....

You didn't pay for the cost of a second or third person playing 100% through the online game when you paid for it at the beginning. That is where the lose is coming from. I doubt the second time costs them anything but some of the more popular games change hands 5 or 6 times.

I dont buy used games anyways, but game prices are too high. Its very rare that I find a game thats even worth what we paid for on the last generation consoles let alone the $60 price tag we have now. I say lower the prices but include so much of the game to be integrated to be online that it virtual makes the used copies worthless. Thats what they will end up doing.

Stop jacking up the prices so high on games and we wouldn't need to buy used. $60 for a game that we may play for a month is ridiculous.

What these publishers seem to fail to realise is that they're not loosing 25% of their profits because they have nothing to do with the trade of used games, its separate to them. Whats really happening here is that game publishers want a slice of the trade in pie, so they muscle their way in, and concoct a sob story about why they think they have the right to do it.

I doubt car manufacturers get money from used car sales, LG don't get money when I sell my fridge, why do game developers deserve money in a transaction that has nothing to do with them? To them it's money for nothing.

Jelly2003 said,
What these publishers seem to fail to realise is that they're not loosing 25% of their profits because they have nothing to do with the trade of used games, its separate to them. Whats really happening here is that game publishers want a slice of the trade in pie, so they muscle their way in, and concoct a sob story about why they think they have the right to do it.

I doubt car manufacturers get money from used car sales, LG don't get money when I sell my fridge, why do game developers deserve money in a transaction that has nothing to do with them? To them it's money for nothing.

They are losing profits because they are online games. You think the servers to cost nothing to run?

SputnikGamer said,

They are losing profits because they are online games. You think the servers to cost nothing to run?

Not every game is an online game. Besides, the server cost was paid for in the original sale.

SputnikGamer said,

They are losing profits because they are online games. You think the servers to cost nothing to run?

They can always add a monthly subscription.

nevann said,

Not every game is an online game. Besides, the server cost was paid for in the original sale.

The point they are making is that the server cost for the first person playing through the entire game is paid for. The second and third and so on isn't and thats what they claim is hurting them so badly.

SputnikGamer said,

The point they are making is that the server cost for the first person playing through the entire game is paid for. The second and third and so on isn't and thats what they claim is hurting them so badly.

Faulty logic. The original buyer no longer has access to the game and therefore the servers. They are replaced by the second-hand buyer. The number of users remain the same. It doesn't add to the server costs at all. Unless of course we have discs that magically multiply (which takes us into piracy)

Edited by wideboy, May 16 2010, 9:37pm :

wideboy said,

Faulty logic. The original buyer no longer has access to the game and therefore the servers. They are replaced by the second-hand buyer. The number of users remain the same. It doesn't add to the server costs at all. Unless of course we have discs that magically multiply (which takes us into piracy)

You are understanding it fully. Yes the cost per month may stay the same when the game chances hands. The point is that the game was designed to be played x hours online. When it changes hands, has now spend 2x online. Not at the same time obviously but if the first persons payment covers 100 hours online and after that it cuts into profits, that is where the problem comes. If the game only takes 20 hours to beat then 5 people can play that one copy without it hurting. If that game takes 20 hours to beat online but only 40 hours have been paid for, after the 2nd person, profits are lost.

Lots and lots of developers are going bankrupt. I love everyone who says that "these guys are just greedy." Stupidest argument I have ever heard. And even if all games were highly profitable, the whole greed argument sounds stupid because jeez, maybe these are I don't know, businesses?

babyHacker said,
Lots and lots of developers are going bankrupt. I love everyone who says that "these guys are just greedy." Stupidest argument I have ever heard. And even if all games were highly profitable, the whole greed argument sounds stupid because jeez, maybe these are I don't know, businesses?

They go bankrupt because of failed projects, bad investments, and bottom feeding big wigs at the top sucking out all of the profits by their hard working employees. Piracy is a problem, and a lot of that is lost revenue (not all, some would never buy regardless), but give one single example as to how games are any different from CD's, DVD's, Cars, appliances, home furnishings or anything else.

thornz0 said,

They go bankrupt because of failed projects, bad investments, and bottom feeding big wigs at the top sucking out all of the profits by their hard working employees. Piracy is a problem, and a lot of that is lost revenue (not all, some would never buy regardless), but give one single example as to how games are any different from CD's, DVD's, Cars, appliances, home furnishings or anything else.

Your examples only cost the creators money if there are defects. Online games cost the creators money because they have to keep paying for the servers that host them online. Every time an individual game changes hands and is played online, the creators are actually losing money because they are having to pay for the electricity, bandwidth, and whatever else goes into keeping the server running. The person who bought it second hand didn't pay for there time online so the company is having to cover the extra time out of their own pocket.

SputnikGamer said,

Your examples only cost the creators money if there are defects. Online games cost the creators money because they have to keep paying for the servers that host them online. Every time an individual game changes hands and is played online, the creators are actually losing money because they are having to pay for the electricity, bandwidth, and whatever else goes into keeping the server running. The person who bought it second hand didn't pay for there time online so the company is having to cover the extra time out of their own pocket.


What you don't understand Sput is that once you pay for the game the first time is has the cost of server maintenace included in the price. If the game changes hands it dosen't increase the bandwidth or cost of server maintenace. Once you sale a game you are no longer playing it online so its a bandwidth switch from one user to another not additional bandwidth. If you have and Xbox 360 a small potion of the money Microsoft gets from Xbox live goes for server maintenance and to help improve bandwidth.

killacozy said,


What you don't understand Sput is that once you pay for the game the first time is has the cost of server maintenace included in the price. If the game changes hands it dosen't increase the bandwidth or cost of server maintenace. Once you sale a game you are no longer playing it online so its a bandwidth switch from one user to another not additional bandwidth. If you have and Xbox 360 a small potion of the money Microsoft gets from Xbox live goes for server maintenance and to help improve bandwidth.


+1 That is how I also look at this.

killacozy said,


What you don't understand Sput is that once you pay for the game the first time is has the cost of server maintenace included in the price. If the game changes hands it dosen't increase the bandwidth or cost of server maintenace. Once you sale a game you are no longer playing it online so its a bandwidth switch from one user to another not additional bandwidth. If you have and Xbox 360 a small potion of the money Microsoft gets from Xbox live goes for server maintenance and to help improve bandwidth.

If the game makers create a game that should last about 40 hours of game play online, which isn't much by anyones standards, they figure the cost at that. If the game switches hands once, thats 80 hours, 40 of which werent paid for. Switch again, 120 total, 80 of which werent paid for. Now imagine only 1000 ever switch hands just twice. Thats 80,000 hours of unpaid usage. Stop looking at it in the eyes of a consumer or you will never understand what is going on. 80,000 hours of online game play has to be paid for somehow. If only used copies are being sold anymore, that game time is never paid for by anyone but the company, hence lost profits, because they are using profits to pay for it.

SputnikGamer said,

Your examples only cost the creators money if there are defects. Online games cost the creators money because they have to keep paying for the servers that host them online. Every time an individual game changes hands and is played online, the creators are actually losing money because they are having to pay for the electricity, bandwidth, and whatever else goes into keeping the server running. The person who bought it second hand didn't pay for there time online so the company is having to cover the extra time out of their own pocket.

But wouldn't they have to keep the servers running anyway for the people who have bought the game in the first place? If the game was sold by person 1, the person 1 is no longer using the bandwith. When person 2 plays, he is using no more bandwith, electricity, ect than if Person 1 was still the owner.

I quit playing games along time ago. Between having to pay approx 50.00 for a game, then the monthly fee to connect online to play it and the requirement you have to buy things in the game to play with, game just became too expensive. This is just another case of a company doing anything it can to sqeeze every cent out of the public it can.

IndyLateNite said,

But wouldn't they have to keep the servers running anyway for the people who have bought the game in the first place? If the game was sold by person 1, the person 1 is no longer using the bandwith. When person 2 plays, he is using no more bandwith, electricity, ect than if Person 1 was still the owner.

I quit playing games along time ago. Between having to pay approx 50.00 for a game, then the monthly fee to connect online to play it and the requirement you have to buy things in the game to play with, game just became too expensive. This is just another case of a company doing anything it can to sqeeze every cent out of the public it can.

Yes and no. They figure out how much it will cost for the person to use the servers. If they know the game only has 20 hours of content and the most users wont play it more than a few hours past that, they can figure out the cost. Whatever is left over on the tail end is profit. What they can't calculate is how many times the game will switch hands. That is where they are coming form when they say games are costing them profits. The problem is coming from using an old style system that worked for PC games back when consoles were not online. Back then you installed Diablo, logged on to Blizzards server which did nothing but connect you with other players. It didn't host games at all. Everything was run on your own PC. Counterstrike is another great example. That system doesn't work for console games because the Microsoft forces you to use online servers that are dedicated. Sure it cuts back on cheating and makes for better running servers but the end result dips into the developers and server owners pockets which as any sane business, will complain about. What needs to happen is they either allow for player servers or what they are doing now. As a business, which would you choose? The solution that brings you money or the one that doesn't?

Edit: 50 dollars plus the fee to play online is too much but I have the money to blow so I really can't say anything.

Edited by SputnikGamer, May 15 2010, 1:59am :

lol hey game devs guess what ? maybe leaving people/the consumer to decide what they do with games after they pay for them will work...

I will not buy digital downloads, I want the disk in my hand cause that's exactly what I will do after I'm done with it is sell it!!! Gives me a little money to buy the next one with. So the day they go all digital and I can't sell it is the day I stop playing games.

I feel pushed around by the industry ... I want the games but not with strings attached or DRM. I just want a good fun playable game.

Ok now my **** is boiling

the siimple truth is the companies want in on what tbh is a closed area to them.

Look there saying that it's worse than piracy, why is this?

I'll explain there crying because effectively someone isn't buying the game new, or more to the point an additional copy isn't being bought.

Hold the **** on the reason people buy games 2nd hand is because either there budget is lower, or just possibily the game isn't worth £50.

How the hell they think that they can charge AGAIN for a game already paid for is beyond me. Don't start with you buy the right to play it, well someone already has so STFU. They need to wake up and realise that to keep the INDUSTRY going they need 2nd hand sales, as it create revenue to keep there GAME shops open.

Simple choice here Developers

reduce the cost of the title so everyone can buy it/afford it
or
accept that not everyone will pay the premium cost for your game.

your being greedy and stepping over the mark.
If you stop people buying 2nd hand games you'll push them towards on ILLEGAL DOWNLOADS. Piracy has been proven in other media to INCREASE sales. in fact pirates BUY 2x the amount of music a non pirate buys.

gah it's all ****ed up, but I wont be paying extra for 2nd hand games, I'll just not buy them. Then the shops loose out, and so does the Gaming community, and they still make no more money.

vaximily said,
I stopped reading after the third "their, they're, there" error...
I'm happy my brain can interpret what the person is trying to say.

Write games that have decent stories, are fun to play and last longer than 10 hours and people will probably want to keep them! Like Diablo, I still play that sometimes and it is older than I care to think.

EA are the worst offenders for creating rubbish games, I don't usually want to buy them let alone keep the games so who are they to tell me I can't sell them on? again this is like C&C4 finished that in under 10 hours, I can't sell it on but instead I can tell people to not buy it as it sucks. I would wager that they would loose more money that way

Laura said,
They are assuming that people who buy used games would shell out for brand new ones. This is a mistake.

This is the same assumption used about pirates and of course very wrong.

Laura said,
They are assuming that people who buy used games would shell out for brand new ones. This is a mistake.
They are trying to get something back because shops that sell used games are profiting very good right now.

The assumption that perhaps this will increase new sales is wrong. People buy used games to save money. If they reduced at least $10 to the price of new games, more people would buy them instead and leave the developers/publishers with more profit.

Surely it's just the marketplace saying that the price of new titles is just too high. Thus, which does the developer prefer pre-owned games or piracy?

The correct response is to lower the pricing of some game titles and try and develop new innovative titles that can be produced for lower cost and hence sold at a lower price point. Don't they realise that there's a limit to how many games people can afford at £50 each? The 'gameplay experience' is what counts, thus stop developing so many multi-million dollar titles, encourage independent lower cost developers, and sell their wares.

And on another point, are pre-owned games really all that different from the 'platinum' and 'classic' labels publishers move games to once they're no longer new?

adam.mt said,
And on another point, are pre-owned games really all that different from the 'platinum' and 'classic' labels publishers move games to once they're no longer new?

yea...the publisher still gets some money on those platinum/classic ones

God this is such BS. Get over it, game publishers! What else out there requires that second-hand purchases must pay some royalty to the content creator? If I buy a used car, should I have to pay Toyota, in addition to the original owner?

agreenbhm said,
God this is such BS. Get over it, game publishers! What else out there requires that second-hand purchases must pay some royalty to the content creator? If I buy a used car, should I have to pay Toyota, in addition to the original owner?

+1 Exactly.

Everyone wants a piece of the pie.

Klownicle said,

+1 Exactly.

Everyone wants a piece of the pie.

Well said. This is just BS these guys are crying poor and clamering onto whatever they can.

Klownicle said,

+1 Exactly.

Everyone wants a piece of the pie.

The problem is that they want a piece of the pie when they've already had a piece! Going back to my car analogy, game publishers disabling certain content unless you pay an additional fee is like a car company saying you need to pay extra for the A/C to work in the car, even though you made an agreement with the original owner to purchase the car from them. The game publishers are greedy.

The other thing I'd like to point out is that a lot of times if you buy a used newer game at say Gamestop, it's $5 cheaper than the game new. If the game publisher is charging $10 to access certain content (I read an article the other day, possibly on Neowin or DownloadSquad, suggesting that was what they intended to do), you're now paying MORE than the retail price of a new game for a used game. That is just absurd, especially to the unsuspecting consumer who purchases the game used to save a few bucks. And of course if he tries to sell it back to Gamestop when he realizes that he's been screwed, they will just kick him when he's down, paying him 50% (if that) of what he paid for it, and then they will resell it for that same $5-cheaper-than-new price he originally paid. The whole system is screwed up.

agreenbhm said,
God this is such BS. Get over it, game publishers! What else out there requires that second-hand purchases must pay some royalty to the content creator? If I buy a used car, should I have to pay Toyota, in addition to the original owner?

Are used cars sold for almost the same price as a used game? Not at all. Part of the issue is the price that companies like GameStop are selling these games for. Do I fully agree with what EA and other publishers are doing? Not at all, but I certainly understand where they're coming from. I wouldn't want to sell a product, profit from it once, and then watch the company that sold it profit off it over and over again.

agreenbhm said,
God this is such BS. Get over it, game publishers! What else out there requires that second-hand purchases must pay some royalty to the content creator? If I buy a used car, should I have to pay Toyota, in addition to the original owner?


ill add my +1 as well !!

agreenbhm said,
God this is such BS. Get over it, game publishers! What else out there requires that second-hand purchases must pay some royalty to the content creator? If I buy a used car, should I have to pay Toyota, in addition to the original owner?

+ 10000000000000000000

agreenbhm said,
God this is such BS. Get over it, game publishers! What else out there requires that second-hand purchases must pay some royalty to the content creator? If I buy a used car, should I have to pay Toyota, in addition to the original owner?

+1 also. I understand where they are coming from and also remember that cars sold used have less value partly because of the wear and tear after so many miles. Games however don't get that. A game bought new this year will be just as good if bought 3 years from now, if the disc holds up. So I can see there ideology, but its also greed.

seethru said,

Are used cars sold for almost the same price as a used game? Not at all. Part of the issue is the price that companies like GameStop are selling these games for. Do I fully agree with what EA and other publishers are doing? Not at all, but I certainly understand where they're coming from. I wouldn't want to sell a product, profit from it once, and then watch the company that sold it profit off it over and over again.

+1 This comment points to the source of the problem, shops like GameStop buying a game for $7 and reselling for $5-$10 less than brand new. Imagine if GameStop did not mark them up so high, Publishers might not be looking at that huge pile of cash and wanting to dip in. Also, the car analogy does not really work. This is software where the creator has the opportunity and means to limit its use. That doesn't make it right, but it is vastly different from a car and what the maker can do after you buy it.

agreenbhm said,
God this is such BS. Get over it, game publishers! What else out there requires that second-hand purchases must pay some royalty to the content creator? If I buy a used car, should I have to pay Toyota, in addition to the original owner?

+1 A perfect analogy.

agreenbhm said,
God this is such BS. Get over it, game publishers! What else out there requires that second-hand purchases must pay some royalty to the content creator? If I buy a used car, should I have to pay Toyota, in addition to the original owner?
Err, yes, they do expect you to do this, with things such as services, MOTs, etc. that Toyota expect you to come to them to do, in fact some of car manufacturer guarantees say that services can only be performed by the original manufacturer. Your analogy is flawed. Sorry

d4v1d05 said,
Err, yes, they do expect you to do this, with things such as services, MOTs, etc. that Toyota expect you to come to them to do, in fact some of car manufacturer guarantees say that services can only be performed by the original manufacturer. Your analogy is flawed. Sorry

No, they don't. I pay the guys at the local garage to do any repairs and the yearly MOT on my car. The original manufacturer sees nothing. They have their cash from the original sale.

agreenbhm said,
God this is such BS. Get over it, game publishers! What else out there requires that second-hand purchases must pay some royalty to the content creator? If I buy a used car, should I have to pay Toyota, in addition to the original owner?

Do people buy a new car, use it for a road trip over the weekend, and trade it in the very next week? NO! I am so sick of seeing this fundamentally flawed "arguement" by fools like you. Let me make this very simple and clear: a car is a long term investment, games have a ridiculously short shelf life and have one of the most volitile markets ever imagined. Stop comparing apples to tazmanian devils.

Nogib said,

Do people buy a new car, use it for a road trip over the weekend, and trade it in the very next week? NO! I am so sick of seeing this fundamentally flawed "arguement" by fools like you. Let me make this very simple and clear: a car is a long term investment, games have a ridiculously short shelf life and have one of the most volitile markets ever imagined. Stop comparing apples to tazmanian devils.

When someone buys something, they expect to now "own" it (it is different with services where you pay monthly/yearly though). That also means allowing them to resell it used.

You see, cars and games are different. But the point of the analogy was that once you buy something, you should have the right to resell (and the person you sell it to should now own it, and not have to pay any more).

seethru said,

Are used cars sold for almost the same price as a used game? Not at all. Part of the issue is the price that companies like GameStop are selling these games for. Do I fully agree with what EA and other publishers are doing? Not at all, but I certainly understand where they're coming from. I wouldn't want to sell a product, profit from it once, and then watch the company that sold it profit off it over and over again.

It is easy for a company to sell many copies of a game. The only charge is the CD it is put on and the box, I guess. With a car, you can't just copy/paste and put it in a box. It costs much more to product each car than each copy of a game.

Cars cost more, but subtract the cost to make each one.
Games cost many lot to design, but you can easily make copies and distribute.

There is real value to getting a brand new car or brand new house. There isn't with games. This is basically what publishers are trying to introduce with their in-box keys: value for getting an original copy.

agreenbhm said,
God this is such BS. Get over it, game publishers! What else out there requires that second-hand purchases must pay some royalty to the content creator? If I buy a used car, should I have to pay Toyota, in addition to the original owner?

they just want to squeeze every single penny they can out of consumers, greedy motherfockers.

chago12 said,

they just want to squeeze every single penny they can out of consumers, greedy motherfockers.

As opposed to GameStop which profit like crazy by buying games for 20 and selling them for 50? Sorry, I'd rather a publisher or developer get the cash than GameStop. What EA is doing will force used game prices down anyway, otherwise it wouldn't make sense to buy a used game over a new game.

I love how people jump on the bandwagon to bash EA and don't realize that ultimately GameStop is the cause of this.

The only reason car manufacturers (or any other retailer) don't try to charge you for something after you purchase it is because there would be a huge backlash, boycotts, lawsuits, etc. These corporations are in business out to make money however they can using whatever method they can. This move doesn't surprise me. The game creator's see a huge pile of money and are trying to get in on it. It comes down to us, the consumer, and what we'll tolerate. Obviously people are buying these used games at huge mark-ups and people are selling them for $0.30 on the dollar or Game Stop would go out of business. If we don't like it (and I don't), we should stop taking part in it. Unfortunately there are many people who don't mind buying a game for $55, playing it for 2 weeks, then turning it in for $17. Vote with your wallet. Maybe if enough people wise up then a company like Game Stop will stop robbing us blind at every turn, profits will become more reasonable, and the game creator's will focus on content instead of milking the consumer for every possible dollar.

Tim Dawg said,
The only reason car manufacturers (or any other retailer) don't try to charge you for something after you purchase it is because there would be a huge backlash, boycotts, lawsuits, etc. These corporations are in business out to make money however they can using whatever method they can. This move doesn't surprise me. The game creator's see a huge pile of money and are trying to get in on it. It comes down to us, the consumer, and what we'll tolerate. Obviously people are buying these used games at huge mark-ups and people are selling them for $0.30 on the dollar or Game Stop would go out of business. If we don't like it (and I don't), we should stop taking part in it. Unfortunately there are many people who don't mind buying a game for $55, playing it for 2 weeks, then turning it in for $17. Vote with your wallet. Maybe if enough people wise up then a company like Game Stop will stop robbing us blind at every turn, profits will become more reasonable, and the game creator's will focus on content instead of milking the consumer for every possible dollar.

They charge you for service. And how is games charging you extra when you don't have to buy DLC and you should know well in advance that online has cost if it did.

This problem is widespread, Game shops and lazy gamers is the reason for this. If you have patience, you could recoup 60% at least for the game you bought by selling it on Ebay or any auction site.

Eddo89 said,

They charge you for service. And how is games charging you extra when you don't have to buy DLC and you should know well in advance that online has cost if it did.

This problem is widespread, Game shops and lazy gamers is the reason for this. If you have patience, you could recoup 60% at least for the game you bought by selling it on Ebay or any auction site.

What seems wierd to me is that in a normal analogy like a different software, you could not sell it legaly second hand unless you have a permit from the company, you cannot sell windows vista you bought for your computer, or even if you bought Cubase and got sick of it, in order to sell it legaly, there has to be an exchange of license through the company.

WICKO said,

As opposed to GameStop which profit like crazy by buying games for 20 and selling them for 50? Sorry, I'd rather a publisher or developer get the cash than GameStop. What EA is doing will force used game prices down anyway, otherwise it wouldn't make sense to buy a used game over a new game.

I love how people jump on the bandwagon to bash EA and don't realize that ultimately GameStop is the cause of this.

I agree to an extent...When I first heard about this, I was also part of the "Bad EA" crowd. But when I found out that Gamestop charges just $5 - $10 below a new game price, I can understand why the developers would be a little envious.

But I think the real problem is the fools that buy the second hand games at those inflated prices! Also, if the developers see that a game $5 - $10 cheaper is selling well...why not lower your prices and wipe out the second hand game industry yourself?