Treyarch: Pre-owned is a problem


Recommended Posts

I'm no lawyer, but if the multiplayer is dlc one time code, would they have to label it as such on the box, or label it like normal, S if they label it like normal and multiplayer isn't included, would that be borderline false advertisement as after the code is used, it's no longer included

Personally I don't buy anything used, but ill pass on anygame new that does this for principle alone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no lawyer, but if the multiplayer is dlc one time code, would they have to label it as such on the box, or label it like normal, S if they label it like normal and multiplayer isn't included, would that be borderline false advertisement as after the code is used, it's no longer included

Who is "they". It'd be the stores responsibility, when it left the publishers plant it had the codes included. If a place sells it second hand and alters the content then I think the store would have to affix something to the box.

Anyway I'm not against one time use DLC keys, in fact I like the idea EA went with for Dragons Age and Mass Effect 2 where you goy access to things a while after the game came out. I don't however think there should be any extra costs associated with core functions of a game such as multiplayer...rather keep it as more relatively optional content that isn't as fundamental to the game experience but can be used to entice users (extra missions, weapons ect). They should improve the bonus content offered with games too to encourage first time purchase. Making of DVD's and steel book cases are a bit generic and boring, meaningful in game content of mini figurines and statues or soundtracks are a bit more interesting and certainly encourage myself and others to place preorders.

What I find somewhat curious is the attention EA, Activision ect are getting now when really Valve has for half a decade now implemented a system that was more restrictive than anyone else is implementing now in regards to it's games in that you effectively cant resell them at all. It almost seems like not being able to resell a game is better accepted by gamers than being able to with some limitations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's organize and get all gamers to not buy games, new or used or DLC, for one day and let's all see what these companies have to say then. It won't happen, but it's a nice thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't see the issue with them wanting to get a cut of the money from someone who's purchased their game. Then again I'm not stingy enough with my money to buy used games often enough that it makes a difference for me. I think they deserve a cut and this seems like a reasonable way to do it (if not the only way - I doubt retailers would budge much on not giving them a cut). If you've got an issue you could always not buy the game, but my bet is on them making bank off these programs while only ****ing off a minority of people.

Really? I am being stingy if I decide to buy a used game because it saves me $10? Or if I choose to use a service like GameFly and rent games instead of actually buying them? So really, I am stingy? Just curious, do you happen to own your own house? Not rent an apartment where the worse that can happen if you miss rent is an eviction. But do you have to pay a mortgage every month to make sure the roof stays over your head? And every single bill associated with owning a home? And if you miss enough payments the bank can foreclose on your home? Have you ever been unemployed? I mean seriously, what you consider "stingy" or "I could not always buy the game if I've got an issue," I could not disagree any stronger than I absolutely disagree with you. See for me, it is called being smart with my money, and realizing I have more important things to spend my money life on other than video games. It is a hobby in fact, so anyway I can spend less money on my hobby and save more money for my actual real life, than I am going to do that. And it is absolutely not me being stingy, it is me making ends meet and in fact being intelligent.

So it is pretty simple as far as I see it, and someone else already touched on it. It is my right as a consume to buy something used if I so wish. Until it is against the law to buy used items, then they have to live with it and not punish people. Not only that, but only one person can play the game online, and that is whomever the current owner is. While I understand how they can be upset about not making money on a resale, that is absolutely an issue they need to take up with the retail stores who are making all of the money on the used sale. It has nothing to do with the consumers themselves. Using MP as the supposed reason for all of this is 110% an absolute joke, and totally and completely irrelevant. If absolutely makes no difference who is online with a copy of a game, especially on the consoles. Only one person can play online while playing one copy of the game, so it is a total joke for them to use that as the reason, as it is either the original owner of the game, or the new owner, but only one person will be online playing MP with it. So makes no difference to them who it is. It is ONE person.

So I just cannot support this really from any perspective. I just cannot get on the side of the argument that says buying games used or renting games are a bad thing. For some people, it is literally their only option. I have family members who have literally never, ever purchased a new game as they simply cannot afford it. They need to wait upwards of 2-3 years to play certain games until they are available used for the $20 range. That is simply all they can afford. And again, as a person who has a family to support and a roof to keep over my head, I am going to do what I can when I can to save money on what is essentially a hobby at the end of the day.

So go ahead, say I do not support the game developers, and go ahead, say it is an art so I should somehow view the medium of video games differently than I view all other forms of media that are also meant to entertain, but I buy used or rent with 90% of the games I play, and that is simply because from a financial standpoint that it what makes the most sense to me. I buy some guys new, like Mod nation Racers, battlefield Bad Company 2, and God Of War III are three recent games I was able to get new, either because they were on sale on Amazon or from credit I received for trade ins at Gamestop. So that is indeed when I purchase New, but it is not something I feel that as a gamer, and because I "respect" game developers, that I have to do every single time I get a game. I like playing games, and I also need to spend money wisely. That is the bottom line. More power to you if somehow you do not have to worry about what you spend your money on and how much you can spend, but not everyone is that fortunate in life.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

And you don't see how this is greedy?

I pay for the new game, I play it online and keep it for a while.. I occupy my share of multiplayer infrustructure i paid for..

I sell that game and the person who bought it occupies my space.. they have zero loss in anything..

This is just greedy as hell.. they see a way to milk more money from people so they want to limit this.. there's nothing fair or good about this.. They already got the money for the game, who uses it is not their concern.

They are just ticked off that Game Stop or anyone is making money off the game in addition to what studio got when they sold the game. That's not LOSS.. that's just them being greedy as **** and wanting a piece of that money too.

This also means that I can't even give my game to someone else as a gift when I have a ton of them I don't play anymore. They have to shell out $10.

There's absolutely no excuse for what they are doing and should be criticized heavily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's absolutely no excuse for what they are doing and should be criticized heavily.

Should have done that when they were incentivising pre-order bonuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be happy if they did just an online component and charged accordingly.

Bought HL1 for the mods. Never played the single player. Same with HL2

Own Modern Warfare...never played the single player. Same with MW2

I buy these games to play online against real people...not against crappy AI characters in a scripted environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

Geez, didn't mean to offend you. Disagreeing with me is fine, but don't pretend that because I buy my games new I'm not being careful how I spend my money. If I don't have money for games I don't buy them. During 2009 I bought a grand total of 1 game (Burnout Paradise) because beyond that, I didn't have money to support gaming. I know how to manage my money wisely and if I can fit new games into my budget, then I do so. I also said I think they deserve a cut when a game of theirs gets purchased. I didn't insinuate that you don't respect them because you're buying used games. There just isn't a system in place where they get a cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth

Thanks, Larry, for being the voice of reason.

This is nothing more than a blatant money-grab on the part of the game developers. They've decided that just because they have the technical means to screw people over for DARING not to give them money, they now want to use it to "explore revenue-enhancing techniques" and a bunch of other shareholder-meeting power-talk bullsh*t.

Frankly I'd love to see the next big-name blockbuster game released using this scheme fail horribly. They would deserve to be out those millions of dollars of development funds for trying to end-run around the Doctrine of First Sale like this.

Others have made car analogies and I'll join them. Someone buys a car. Say the price is $19000. The manufacturer gets $19000 for the sale (give or take depending on expenses, contracts, etc.). After that, it is DONE. The manufacturer has no legal right at all to more money for the later resale of the same car. No matter how many times it changes hands, it's none of the manufacturer's business. And it's been that way for about 100 years and car makers seem to be getting on JUST FINE.

But the game developers (and the music companies and movie companies and software companies...) cry foul. "But but...COPYRIGHT! And LICENSES! And IMAGINARY-- erm, we mean INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY! Listen to our corporate buzzwords and obey them because we want them to change things! So they should change things! Because we want it and we're intellectual property corporations!"

Well I say "no." Not now, not ever, will I ever consent to have my right of resale governed by what is effectively corporate law. I'd sooner give up gaming and take up botany in its place. Attention game companies: You want my money? Well then you play by your customers' rules, not the other way around. Restricted resale means no initial sale. No initial sale means no money. And I know I'm not alone in this sentiment. Try this BS and see how far it gets you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I know I'm not alone in this sentiment. Try this BS and see how far it gets you.

1. Red Dead Redemption (Rockstar San Diego/Rockstar Games)

2. 2010 FIFA World Cup: South Africa (EA Sports/Electronic Arts)

3. UFC Undisputed 2010 (Yukes Interactive/THQ)

4. Just Dance (Ubisoft/Ubisoft)

5. Wii Fit Plus (Nintendo/Nintendo)

6. The Sims 3: Ambitions (Maxis/EA)

7. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (Infinity Ward/Activision)

8. Wii Sports Resort (Nintendo/Nintendo)

9. Lost Planet 2 (Capcom/Capcom)

10. Blur (Bizarre Creations/Activision)

Riding high in the charts apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love all this talk about "core features" and "basic functionality" and it strikes me how spoiled gamers are, really. 10 years ago console-based dedicated-server-based online multiplayer more or less didn't exist. Companies are still trying to find their way to making them profitable.

"used owner takes the spot the original owner paid for" is "true" in a sense...but not really. The game companies give "free" (minus XBL Fees) online play to their users because they know eventually the user will, you know, move on. The end user selling their game, after his enjoyment lifetime is over, means that a new user, unfactored into the formula, now wants to go through the usage curve of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sucks that their doing this but really doesn't affect me. I never sell games or buy preowned games since the $5-$10 difference isn't enough to win me over a brand new sealed copy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love all this talk about "core features" and "basic functionality" and it strikes me how spoiled gamers are, really. 10 years ago console-based dedicated-server-based online multiplayer more or less didn't exist. Companies are still trying to find their way to making them profitable.

"used owner takes the spot the original owner paid for" is "true" in a sense...but not really. The game companies give "free" (minus XBL Fees) online play to their users because they know eventually the user will, you know, move on. The end user selling their game, after his enjoyment lifetime is over, means that a new user, unfactored into the formula, now wants to go through the usage curve of the game.

Spoiled? Just what the hell do we owe those companies anyway? They make a product, they market it, we may or may not buy it. Once bought, that seals the deal. It's a cash-for-goods sale and the reward for development efforts is money. If we don't buy, oh well - making and marketing the product was their decision, not ours. Nobody put a gun to their head, and businesses do not have a right to make money, only a right to try to make money.

And multiplayer doesn't have to be profitable in order to exist. There are plenty of free open-source games that have multiplayer features (OpenArena, Nexuiz, Tremulous to name a few) without costing a cent - this was implemented for fun by hobbyist programmers.

So no, I do not think gamers are "spoiled." There are norms and trends in gaming and game development. These norms and trends exist, for better or for worse. The trend toward taking away functionality as a means of suffocating secondhand sales is one that is harmful to customers and that I consider unethical. It may even run afoul of the law, but that has not yet been tested in court. I hope it is, sooner rather than later, and I hope the outcome is not pleasant for corporations that try to lock features to first-sale copies only. Maybe if one or two development studios are bankrupted by fines or settlements it will stand as a warning to the rest to respect their customers and not try to double-dip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, dude:

The trend toward taking away functionality as a means of suffocating secondhand sales is one that is harmful to customers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it harmful though? I'm a customer, it doesn't effect me.

I think in this context you're only a customer if you buy the game in question. And if you buy the game in question, taking away functionality would affect you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in this context you're only a customer if you buy the game in question. And if you buy the game in question, taking away functionality would affect you.

You're only loosing the functionality if you buy second hand though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, but the problem is that this is an artificial limitation imposed deliberately by the producer as a means of snuffing out secondhand sales. There's nothing inherent to the nature of a game that should cause certain features to stop working if the software is resold used. Software doesn't "wear out." The problem is that the producers are trying to exert control beyond where creators, manufacturers, etc. have historically had a right to. Look at any sale of any material goods and you'll see that once the first sale is made, it is completely and totally out of the creator's hands. Anything that happens beyond that happens whether the creator wants it to or not. And our economy has grown and evolved around this principle. Now these greedy game makers are trying to undermine that by sabotaging product so that it effectively punishes the customer for not giving the producers more money. It is for that reason that I suggest we punish them back by not giving them any money at all, starving them and driving them into bankruptcy and out of jobs. Assign a few of these greed-mongers a financial corporate death penalty and watch the rest fall into line and start saying "Sir, yes sir" to their customers again.

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.