Ayepecks Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 It is unfair, they have already been paid once they shouldnt be paid for each subsequent time the game is resold to someone else. If they want to charge for DLC then fair enough but you cant sell a game with all features intact then like EA is rumoured to be doing including a code to "activate" the online portion which when the game is resold the next person cannot use. Thats like me buying a car and paying to have the engine switched on then when i sell the car i take the engine out and the next person has to pay for a new engine. This has never been the case with any market games or otherwise for 20+ years, its all about greed. idiots like Kotick make millions from games and people like him want to introduce the $10 fee to activate the online portion if a game is resold. I agree developers should be paid for their work but not repaid every time the game resells used. They should offer incentives for people to buy new, not screw everyone over by making it so only the person who bought it new can use it full featured. EA is rumored to bundle a code to activate the multiplayer portion... what? Did you just now start this "rumor"? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spookie Posted May 19, 2010 Author Share Posted May 19, 2010 EA is rumored to bundle a code to activate the multiplayer portion... what? Did you just now start this "rumor"? :laugh: Lets not get arsey now, he's right. They are bundling MP in as a code for all Sports games starting from Tiger "18 holes" Woods 2011 this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diablous Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 Why does everyone forget ITS A SECOND HAND GAME it's already been paid for, it's not a lost sale, or some form of wierd piracy, i mean can publishers not see that it's been sold the person who had it got rid of it for a reason from, not liking to finishing it in a weekend. You can't charge someone AGAIN for a 2nd hand product, **** I wish I could do that at work. They need to start grasping that if there product isn't great it won't sell well, and will hit the 2nd hand market before the end of the release weekend. you can't resale something that doesn't belong it you from memory. Next time I sell something, and then i hear it's being sold i'll ask the new owner for ?10 and see how that goes. GRR game makers and publishers need to wake up and make better games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WastedJoker Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 I think it's only right that developers get some reward from sales of second-hand games. Developers resources are being accessed by users of second-hand games without the developer getting a slice of the cash. For example, second-hand copy of BC2? That uses server cpu cycles, bandwidth flow and hits to a website the user visits to track stats. Those resources get used and the developer sees it as a negative use because they did not get the monetary input to cover those costs. The people you SHOULD be mad at are people like Game or Gamestation who charged you such high prices for that second-hand game. Cars lose something like 30% of their value as soon as they leave the dealership. Games only appear to lose, what, 7 or 10%? That's almost pure profit for Game/Gamestation. The developers aren't profiting at all by the second sale of that game. Now who's the bad guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 I'm going to make a graph. It'll show that piracy increases when these kind of plans are put in place, and maybe then the games companies will decide to stop being silly, and stop trying to squeeze their market dry. Perhaps the above is a slight exaggeration, but this is getting very out of hand. First crappy DRM that p***es paying customers off, now attacking people who legitimately buy the game for a cheaper price...is it any wonder that people turn to piracy? why do you think the graph will show this ? you do realize pirated copies also won't get the extra content. not until pirated versions can actually modify files as well. And for them it's important to make buying games from stores new a better alternative. used copies actually cost the developers money, it'd be better if you simply waited for the game to drop in the bargain bin, then at least they're making money. By buying a used copy the only company you support are the reseller stores. You don't support the company who actually made the game you're enjoying. which is why they do this, this way you can still buy it used, and to get some extra features, you can pay a small sum that goes directly to the studio and you get to actually support the guys who made the game. Why does everyone forget ITS A SECOND HAND GAME it's already been paid for, it's not a lost sale yes it is. if you don't buy it used you'd buy it retail at full price or at bargain/platinum price. and they'd have good money or at least some money. if you buy it used the devlopers get no money, game/whatever gets money for well doing nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad_onion Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 It's only right that developers get paid for second hand sales. When you buy a game you're buying a license to play it. The physical disk has virtually no value. If someone else wants the right to play the game they have to buy it from the only people able to sell it, the people who made it and own the rights. If I find the keys to the car (the disk) that doesn't suddenly mean I own the car or have right to drive it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakey Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 I think it's only right that developers get some reward from sales of second-hand games. Developers resources are being accessed by users of second-hand games without the developer getting a slice of the cash. For example, second-hand copy of BC2? That uses server cpu cycles, bandwidth flow and hits to a website the user visits to track stats. Those resources get used and the developer sees it as a negative use because they did not get the monetary input to cover those costs. The people you SHOULD be mad at are people like Game or Gamestation who charged you such high prices for that second-hand game. Cars lose something like 30% of their value as soon as they leave the dealership. Games only appear to lose, what, 7 or 10%? That's almost pure profit for Game/Gamestation. The developers aren't profiting at all by the second sale of that game. Now who's the bad guy? First, they already sold the game once, they can not sell the same copy again.... But the person who bought said game can sell their copy, and that person who buys it can sell the copy again. Why is it only the game company that gets a share of the money? Why not everyone who was ever involved with the making/purchasing? There is NO OTHER type of product that does this. No where can you find something being sold second hand, and the original producer making a profit off of it. Why? Because the producer already made their profit! They priced the game at what they believed they needed to price it at based off how much they think it will sell, and go from that. Why should they get more cuts? Damn this is so stupid, I could see the RIAA doing this to music. You have to purchase ur music, then every time you want to relisten to it, you have to pay a penny. Is this the kind of world you all want to live in, one were we are so greedy for money, that we continually screw each other over? Should the guy who made my tires for my car get a pinch every time I sell my tires to someone? How about car dealership when I sell my car? Should an artist get paid every time their painting switches owners? They made their money off the original sale. If people are not buying it new, then there is most likely a very good reason. Trying to sucker people out of more of their money because you think you didn't make enough and should get more, thats just greedy and stupid. If this ever does happen, I will never buy a used game or even sell a game to a store again, just to teach them a lesson. Ill either give me games to friends, burn them, or whatever, instead of putting money into asshats who think like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Teej Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 This could all be avoided if publishers ink a deal with retailers to give publishers a cut of second hand games. Look at this graph: Publishers get, say, 45% of the pie. Now, with a brand new $60 game, retailers give the owner around $30 back, which means they've essentially lost $15. They then go back to sell that on for $50 - which would now give them $35 in profit. Now, while I'm not expecting to give developers $27 out of that $35, giving them $10 (which is their asking price for gamers) means retailers still get $25 profit, which is $10 more then they get currently from new game sales, and now the publisher gets an extra $10 they wouldn't have got before. In other words, publishers get about 30% of the pie, only a small reduction from the pie they get currently, and retailers get a whopping 70%, over 4x the amount they get currently. Considering the large scale of the used games market, this could potentially contribute about another million dollars (think about it, that's only 100,000 used game sales - for a game like MW2 that's a drop in the bucket). Publishers are happy as they now get more money and save face from abolishing this $10 used game DLC practice. Retailers are happy as they still make more money from used game sales and don't have to tarnish their game box with a little sticker saying "No Online!" and won't give another deterrent for people to buy the game brand new - thus the market stays the same but a bit of money changes hands. I mean, doesn't this make perfect business sense? Or am I just being a bit too altruistic and naive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spookie Posted May 20, 2010 Author Share Posted May 20, 2010 This could all be avoided if publishers ink a deal with retailers to give publishers a cut of second hand games. Couldn't see that happening in the UK. The GAME group is already in enough **** from over stretching it self throughout the UK. Putting competitive stores within a mile of each other. Staff are either getting fired or losing 10-20 hours a week at the moment! Then they need to take a further cut in to profits? I can't imagine them agreeing to anything of the sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Teej Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 Couldn't see that happening in the UK. The GAME group is already in enough **** from over stretching it self throughout the UK. Putting competitive stores within a mile of each other. Staff are either getting fired or losing 10-20 hours a week at the moment! Then they need to take a further cut in to profits? I can't imagine them agreeing to anything of the sort. Well they're already going to get rid of a bunch of gamestations and all of the concession stands in Debenhams so they'll eventually be able to afford this sort of initiative. With publishers trying to kill off the used games market, $10 less now is a lot better then a 100% loss on used games sales later on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spookie Posted May 20, 2010 Author Share Posted May 20, 2010 Well they're already going to get rid of a bunch of gamestations and all of the concession stands in Debenhams so they'll eventually be able to afford this sort of initiative. With publishers trying to kill off the used games market, $10 less now is a lot better then a 100% loss on used games sales later on. GAME management have already shown some class A incompetency. I wouldn't have so much faith in them. :p Edit: Not making a second thread for this but the headline says it all. Project $10 5 (Here's the takeaway: codes for non-new buyers will cost $5 (400 Microsoft Points). There's no mention of a trial period, so it looks like renters will have to pony up to try the game online.) has moved to another publisher: UFC Undisputed 2010 requires code to access online multiplayer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamawesomewicked Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 THQ added it to UFC 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick H. Supervisor Posted May 20, 2010 Supervisor Share Posted May 20, 2010 why do you think the graph will show this ? you do realize pirated copies also won't get the extra content. not until pirated versions can actually modify files as well. I'm going to do a Fox News. I'll say the graph is real and ignore the fact that I pulled it out of my a**. :shiftyninja: In all honesty, I was joking more than I was being serious. I think my point was that the games companies seem to be constantly trying to get more money from the legitimate customers, while also giving the legitimate customers more hassle with the legal copies of a game, so it doesn't surprise me when people turn to piracy. And for them it's important to make buying games from stores new a better alternative. used copies actually cost the developers money, it'd be better if you simply waited for the game to drop in the bargain bin, then at least they're making money. By buying a used copy the only company you support are the reseller stores. You don't support the company who actually made the game you're enjoying. which is why they do this, this way you can still buy it used, and to get some extra features, you can pay a small sum that goes directly to the studio and you get to actually support the guys who made the game. Ok, I understand this. I also understand the post that someone else made which pointed out how a multiplayer game still takes up resources for the company, and if you bought the game second hand then you're not contributing to the upkeep of those resources. However, what would be wrong with another poster's suggestion of the games companies signing a deal with the stores that states that the developers get a cut of any second hand games sold as well? If the numbers in this thread are even slightly correct, everyone could still end up profiting without the need to charge the consumer more. Of course this is just using logic, and doesn't take in to account the fact that the retailers won't want to give up a percentage of money that they're currently making just because the gamers don't want to pay more. Eh, whatever. Personally I'm going to steer clear of any game that tries to charge me more for the same "deal" I'm getting at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hammond Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 I think it's only right that developers get some reward from sales of second-hand games. Developers resources are being accessed by users of second-hand games without the developer getting a slice of the cash. For example, second-hand copy of BC2? That uses server cpu cycles, bandwidth flow and hits to a website the user visits to track stats. Those resources get used and the developer sees it as a negative use because they did not get the monetary input to cover those costs. Right and once that second hand copy of BC2 has changed hands the original buyer is no longer using it so his resources are now free to use and in this case the person who bought the game is using the same amount of resources irregardless of who owns the game and how many times the game changes hands its not using more resources than it did when it was originally sold the original person who bought it paid for the use of developer resources. They cant turn round and say "but the second person is using resources he hasnt paid for", they set the price of the game which was commensurate with the amount of time put in and additional resources being used after the game ships, if this isnt enough then charge more for the game, dont whine like a child and expect a cut every time the game resells. The people you SHOULD be mad at are people like Game or Gamestation who charged you such high prices for that second-hand game. Cars lose something like 30% of their value as soon as they leave the dealership. Games only appear to lose, what, 7 or 10%? That's almost pure profit for Game/Gamestation. The developers aren't profiting at all by the second sale of that game.Now who's the bad guy? If people are willing to buy it for that 10% discount whats the problem, if it was too much people would stop buying them and the prices would go down. Its not pure profit at all they have to buy back the game so 50%+ is taken from the so called "pure profit" straight away, then they have overheads like taking up shelf space that retail games could be in, staff wages for testing these games etc.. a retail game might not make as much profit but a used game doesnt generate as much profit as you think it does. Ok, I understand this. I also understand the post that someone else made which pointed out how a multiplayer game still takes up resources for the company, and if you bought the game second hand then you're not contributing to the upkeep of those resources. WRONG, every time you resell it the amount of resources needed doesnt jump up each time, once the game is sold the previous person isnt playing it so the resources are freed up for the person who bought it second hand. The developer has already been paid when the game first sold if thats not enough to cover the lifetime of the game charge more for it, dont charge people who bought it second hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3ntury Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 Sorry, but your all for being charged through the ass for this stuff? A game doesn't cost a couple of thousand pounds? Neither does a single track download for music, but it's okay for the RIAA etc to fine people thousands? They in the past have sued people for about 60 thousand per track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCordRm Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 I don't mind not being able to resell a game. At all. What I do mind is that my games still cost me $50 even though the company isn't out ANYTHING to get it to me. I buy all my games digital now- a great majority through STEAM. I get no manual; no kewl extras like the old Ultima games used to come with. The games are still the same price. THAT is what ****es me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spookie Posted May 20, 2010 Author Share Posted May 20, 2010 I buy all my games digital now- a great majority through STEAM. I get no manual; no kewl extras like the old Ultima games used to come with. The games are still the same price. THAT is what ****es me off. /off topic Prices are dictated by the publisher who is in turn are dictated by retail who get upset if they cut prices online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 I don't mind not being able to resell a game. At all. What I do mind is that my games still cost me $50 even though the company isn't out ANYTHING to get it to me. I buy all my games digital now- a great majority through STEAM. I get no manual; no kewl extras like the old Ultima games used to come with. The games are still the same price. THAT is what ****es me off. I wish people would stop whining about game prices. Games are actually cheaper now than when I bought SNES games as a kid, when new games where $60 or more (actually more, but I'm using the usual 10x multiplier to norwegian prices to add the VAT and the just because Scandinavians have a lot of money price hike). Today, you can usually find new games on deals at one por more stores for as low as 350-400NOK(again using the rather inacurrate, as far as exchange rate go, but accurate as far as actual prices compared to US, 10x that's $35-40. SO games are already cheaper. not add inflation to this, since the value of money has shrunk a lot in the last 10-20 years, and you're looking at significantly cheaper games than before. with longer stopreis, WAAAAAAY higher production values and production costs. So yeah, quit the game price whining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red. Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 I completely agree with those who think the $10 project is a stupid and greedy idea. I don't get the whole argument about ongoing online costs. This is factored into the original price. What's the difference between me playing a game for 6 months or me playing a game for 2 months, selling it, and the other person playing it for 4 months? Not to mention what it does to the rental market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diablous Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 I think it's only right that developers get some reward from sales of second-hand games. Developers resources are being accessed by users of second-hand games without the developer getting a slice of the cash. For example, second-hand copy of BC2? That uses server cpu cycles, bandwidth flow and hits to a website the user visits to track stats. Those resources get used and the developer sees it as a negative use because they did not get the monetary input to cover those costs. The people you SHOULD be mad at are people like Game or Gamestation who charged you such high prices for that second-hand game. Cars lose something like 30% of their value as soon as they leave the dealership. Games only appear to lose, what, 7 or 10%? That's almost pure profit for Game/Gamestation. The developers aren't profiting at all by the second sale of that game. Now who's the bad guy? Wrong the game has been payed for, no one can play the same copy simultaniuously, if security measures are inplace. So in that case the space is catered for by the initial purchase of the original owner, and there for is paid for. nothing is lost nor gained. yes it is. if you don't buy it used you'd buy it retail at full price or at bargain/platinum price. and they'd have good money or at least some money. if you buy it used the devlopers get no money, game/whatever gets money for well doing nothing. Wrong, quite a few games simply would never have been bought otherwise. A few games have come and gone on the games market, and I've not bought them because i do not value the content to a full asking price. Left for Dead 2 is good but not ?50 worth, thus I haven't bought it, and probably will pick it up bargin bin style. Game developers are simply overvaluing there product, and other stepping the mark as to what there right is to a game. Either ban second hand sales, or use a system like Steam which is once it's assoiciated with an account it's fixed to it. Remember some games go for ?3 and paying ?10 for online pay is a **** take. the reason that game was because it was worth taking a punt at it for ?3, not ?13. The Game industry need to realise that once they sold the initial copy it's sold gone, and out of there hands. The example of a second hand car is fitting. You don't buy a car off a person and then give the Manufacturer 10% of the cost because your now using it. The simple answer to this is once you buy the game it belongs to the END USER not the games company. If that person then sells it on and makes a return thats his business. The use of the game after that is not of there concern as it is no longer there property. It's the age old arguement of Virtual vs Physical IP. I see the purchase of a game as the DVD and box, not the game software. and with that in mind once you've given the gaming industry your money you then own posess the content to sell on, resell, give away as you see fit, it is no longer something they can charge for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 Wrong, quite a few games simply would never have been bought otherwise. A few games have come and gone on the games market, and I've not bought them because i do not value the content to a full asking price. Left for Dead 2 is good but not ?50 worth, thus I haven't bought it, and probably will pick it up bargin bin style. And that's what I said.... and when you do that, they still get money. they don't get any money buying used. buyign used games doesn't support the developer at all. buying bargain bin supports them and shows them you're not willing to pay full price but still appreciate the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diablous Posted May 22, 2010 Share Posted May 22, 2010 And that's what I said.... and when you do that, they still get money. they don't get any money buying used. buyign used games doesn't support the developer at all. buying bargain bin supports them and shows them you're not willing to pay full price but still appreciate the game. bargin bin, 2nd hand, or the same thing in the UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spookie Posted May 22, 2010 Author Share Posted May 22, 2010 bargin bin, 2nd hand, or the same thing in the UK No they aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protocol7 Posted May 22, 2010 Share Posted May 22, 2010 If they really want to kill off second hand games then bring out the budget platinum rereleases sooner. Anyone who doesn't buy a title when it's brand new is trying to get it cheaper at a later date. If that's not going to be used or rented then that just leaves platinum. Don't expect people to be still paying full price for MW2 a year after its release. Anyone who wants to play the game when it's new and fresh will already be prepared to pony up the full price on release. Grab all you can from them and then take what you can get (in say 6 months) later with a budget rerelease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smigit Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 This is the same thing: One use key in new copies of the game giving some sort of DLC. Used copies have to buy the key for $10. The market will balance it self out in the end. Either GAME & Co will have to take the drop in profits on used games or aggressively price on new to keep up with online deals. Sorry I'm a bit late with the reply, but I don't really think the keys in a game such as Mass Effect were really the same thing as this. The other titles previously maybe gave you a few side quests or something but you didn't really lose any core component of the game. This is taking that to a whole other level but. They should also maybe put more effort into how they sell the games to get more day one buyers. Better pre order incentives and things consumers actually go for without huge price hikes. Things like the Bioshock 1 CE sold pretty well here because it came with something tangible that a lot of people decided they wanted. and it wasn't especially limited but something tells me they made a fortune on the Halo 3 Legendary Edition given how many they produced (my number off the top of my head is over 500,000). I know some places knocked them off cheaper months later but I'm sure they sold the majority of them at a good price. Cool bonuses like that will get people buying original copies, as long as the game itself is also worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts