Treyarch: Pre-owned is a problem


Recommended Posts

With multiplayer a key selling point for Black Ops, Treyarch community manager Josh Olin has told MCV that Activision and Treyarch would not be employing a similar system to that of THQ?s UFC Undisputed 2010 and EA?s recently announced Online Pass.

However, the practise of supplying a one-time code to unlock the online multiplayer is one that intrigues Treyarch.

?We don?t plan to do anything like that for Black Ops, but it is interesting to see how that?s going to work out for EA and THQ,? says Olin. ?It?s no secret that pre-owned game sales do pose problems for developers and publishers, so it?ll be interesting how well that works to mitigate that issue.?

Rest is here.

So that's EA, Ubisoft, THQ and Activision devs now all expressing an interest or implementing DLC anti-preowned codes. Only Take 2, of the big publishers, left then.

Regarding this statement though: "We don?t plan to do anything like that for Black Ops" is rather an open phrase. Don't plan doesn't mean we won't. :s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I must admit, multiplayer is not a big selling point for me. I'm more of a SP gamer, but I do like to play online occasionally.

Multiplayer is over-rated, and over-hyped. Its only good with a group of friends and admitivly I don't have that many friends :whistle: especially those who dont have the time/consoles to get together on :pinch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it. How is pre-owned a problem?

The original owner has paid for it, you get the cut. The second owner pays for it, in a way, you get another cut.

If you force people to buy new, they may not buy at all. Loss of sale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it. How is pre-owned a problem?

The original owner has paid for it, you get the cut. The second owner pays for it, in a way, you get another cut.

If you force people to buy new, they may not buy at all. Loss of sale.

No, the devs/publisher get no additional money from additional sales once it has been traded in. All that money goes to the store.

I personally dislike the fact they're doing this, namely because usually I'll get a preowned game before a new game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh great... I buy a game so it's my property, if I want to sell it afterwards just let me and stop being greedy. Imo, if developers would make games with enough long time motivation I'm sure used sales would drop. Multiplayer alone doesn't necessarily cut it. I bought Modern Warefare 2 together with 2 mates, we played once through the singleplayer, then played multiplayer for a few months and ultimately we got bored...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imo, if developers would make games with enough long time motivation I'm sure used sales would drop.

You truly believe that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You truly believe that?

Well it seems logically to me, atleast that's my reason for running to GameStop :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh great... I buy a game so it's my property, if I want to sell it afterwards just let me and stop being greedy. Imo, if developers would make games with enough long time motivation I'm sure used sales would drop. Multiplayer alone doesn't necessarily cut it. I bought Modern Warefare 2 together with 2 mates, we played once through the singleplayer, then played multiplayer for a few months and ultimately we got bored...

They're not stopping you from selling it used. they're just giving a bonus to those who buy it new. which only makes sense anyway, since digital goods like games have no inherent drop in value form being used like say a car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The games need to retail at a cheaper price to stop pre-owned/used prices. People, like me, can wait a few months for used prices as generally ?35-50 is too expensive.

?20-25 is ideal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're not stopping you from selling it used. they're just giving a bonus to those who buy it new. which only makes sense anyway, since digital goods like games have no inherent drop in value form being used like say a car.

So things that are and have been integral parts of games since the dawn of the online gaming such as multiplayer are now to be classed as BONUSES?????????

No other market gets a cut every time someone resells whatever it is so why should games developers.

What next, youve played a single player game through once now you have to pay us again before you can play it through again because we feel that you are getting more value out of the game than what you paid for?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No other market gets a cut every time someone resells whatever it is so why should games developers.

They think: One used game sales = MINUS one new game sale.

Fair enough to them. When GAME, just been to town -om nom nom Subway, is aggressively marketing Alan Wake pre owned right next to brand new copies. I'd see my arse too.

I'm sure we'll see pre owned games drop in price to accept the new DLC codes. Hell all new games are dropping to the ?30 price mark within a few weeks this last month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The games need to retail at a cheaper price to stop pre-owned/used prices. People, like me, can wait a few months for used prices as generally ?35-50 is too expensive.

?20-25 is ideal!

This. Price is the only reason I'd buy used as opposed to new. Lower the price, and pre-owned would be much less of a "problem".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^

If the original prices are 20-25, the pre-owned will become even lesser. I think most of us will still hold out for a few months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it. How is pre-owned a problem?

The original owner has paid for it, you get the cut. The second owner pays for it, in a way, you get another cut.

If you force people to buy new, they may not buy at all. Loss of sale.

Second owner doesn't give the developer any money. The second owner also hasn't paid to play on their servers (which is part of the $60 price tag).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So things that are and have been integral parts of games since the dawn of the online gaming such as multiplayer are now to be classed as BONUSES?????????

No other market gets a cut every time someone resells whatever it is so why should games developers.

What next, youve played a single player game through once now you have to pay us again before you can play it through again because we feel that you are getting more value out of the game than what you paid for?

Well no game at least as of yet has actually locked out the multiplayer.Generally they do stuff like BFBC2 where you get free VIP DLC addons, one of which is usually available at launch.

But even so, Since when WAS multiplayer a key part of all games anyway. Unless the game is specifically a multiplayer game, the singleplayer is the game they sell. there's noone forcing them to have multiplayer. If they decide to add on multiplayer, they could decide to include that as a non transferable license to use their multiplayer service, which any secondary buyers need to buy themselves.

As for every other market, no, they don't on the other hand, when you buy a used car, it is used. it's not a brand new car that drives and does everything exactly like it did when new for the original owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second owner doesn't give the developer any money. The second owner also hasn't paid to play on their servers (which is part of the $60 price tag).

Except that the first owner has paid the access fee to play on the servers. By selling the game, they also sell that access. It would be different if the first owner still had the ability to play the game online, but they do not. The second owner having to pay is double-dipping if that is the logic used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well no game at least as of yet has actually locked out the multiplayer.Generally they do stuff like BFBC2 where you get free VIP DLC addons, one of which is usually available at launch.

But even so, Since when WAS multiplayer a key part of all games anyway. Unless the game is specifically a multiplayer game, the singleplayer is the game they sell. there's noone forcing them to have multiplayer. If they decide to add on multiplayer, they could decide to include that as a non transferable license to use their multiplayer service, which any secondary buyers need to buy themselves.

As for every other market, no, they don't on the other hand, when you buy a used car, it is used. it's not a brand new car that drives and does everything exactly like it did when new for the original owner.

They havent locked out multiplayer YET.

I never said multiplayer was a key part of all games, i said ever since there were multiplayer games for the most part they have been integral part of the game on the disk, they cant just decide 20 years later that they arent being properly compensated and start blocking multiplayer for second hand games until you pay them money to unlock it. If they think multiplayer is worth the extra they should just charge extra on the RRP.

Of course a used car does everything like it did, it drives, it steers, the doors close, it might not be in the same condition but it is still a car, just like a game is still a game the disc/manual/box might be damaged but it is still a game. If i sell a dvd or a music cd im pretty sure movie and music studios dont get a cut of the sale, they arent making people pay again just to unlock part of the media, i agree that developers should be properly compensated but they cant just screw over the people who buy their games because they feel they arent being properly compensated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Treyarch: Your games are a problem.

I love pre-owned games b/c i dont have to spend $50-65 for a new, crappy game (cough Treyarch.) I can spend $10 on a PS3 copy of Quantum of Solace or $12 for The Saboteur. Both decent games (i thought) but absolutely not worth $60 new. Yes, i realize that this is more about multiplayer... i think the result is the same.

How about they make better games first, then complain about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they think multiplayer is worth the extra they should just charge extra on the RRP.

1zo7qdg.jpg

Take the money out of GAME's pockets. Not mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It shouldn't matter if a game is pre-owned or not. Every game has a key and if it's preowned then somebody bought that key, which is vaild for as long as the company stays in business and/or keeps the servers running. It's really not any of their business who is using the key, it's been paid for and they have their money. They're just being greedy ****s.

That said, I would never buy a game I intended to play online preowned anyway; there's no guarantee the original owner hasn't cracked the game and continued to use that key (or in many cases a key is tied to an account, and you can't very well demand the original user's account and password), and then you'd be screwed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1zo7qdg.jpg

Take the money out of GAME's pockets. Not mine.

See how ridiculous it sounds?

Why should they get more money for something they already created, it costs pennies to press discs it doesnt cost them ?30-40 for every game they press onto disc.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's because fud like this from the game companies that I've stopped paying for games.

What a stupid excuse. If you're buying games second hand then you're not giving the game companies anything in the first place. So if you're using this as logic to boycott buying them, well it's not really going to make much of a difference in there pocket is it.

I really don't see much wrong with this tactic. What's clever is that they don't even need to care about casual second hand buyers, because they aren't getting any money from them.

It shouldn't matter if a game is pre-owned or not. Every game has a key and if it's preowned then somebody bought that key, which is vaild for as long as the company stays in business and/or keeps the servers running. It's really not any of their business who is using the key, it's been paid for and they have their money. They're just being greedy ****s.

That said, I would never buy a game I intended to play online preowned anyway; there's no guarantee the original owner hasn't cracked the game and continued to use that key (or in many cases a key is tied to an account, and you can't very well demand the original user's account and password), and then you'd be screwed.

I don't know if you understand how it works...

A key will be issued with every new game and valid for only one use. So when the game is bought second hand the new owner will pay an extra $10 for a new key if they wish to play online.

They are trying to make money, but I don't think this is overly greedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second owner doesn't give the developer any money. The second owner also hasn't paid to play on their servers (which is part of the $60 price tag).

The second owner takes the space on the server the first owner won't be using anymore. :) No added cost to the developer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that the first owner has paid the access fee to play on the servers. By selling the game, they also sell that access.

But they don't sell the access. Games are not owned by us. We are sold a license to use the game, which as a license to play the game online. When a used game is sold, the developer does not receive a dime for the resale of the license to use the game. They also don't receive any money for another unique user accessing their online.

I am all for this from a business stand point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.