Buying used games? Developers, publishers don't care about you


Recommended Posts

Or, rather than that, the person I buy it from should deactivate ID somehow so that I can use it, because the money he paid towards using the game online has already been (theoretically) used, and there is no reason I should have to pay them over again, if (assuming standard copyright systems work here) he no longer has the game, and by extension, is no longer playing it, I am simply filling the hole in the online world that he left, I'm not going to pay for a brand new spot.

As far as I know most games that have online play won't allow you to deactivate your account.

For example, if I buy BC2 I can't resell it without giving away my account info. Battle.net has the same limitation, and ubisofts w/e its called has a similar one.

Then that's probably why you wouldn't understand why someone wouldn't want to keep all their old games around. It's not an insult, it's just a fact.

No because I don't have any physical media or n64 games or ps1/2 games right? Stop assuming and putting words into my mouth.

Oh and btw, in another thread, weren't you one of the people claiming piracy is terrible because its not supporting devs?

They'd be upset for the very fact they live in a free market then.

And so do you. Which means if they want to charge you $10 extra for a used game, they pretty much can. Greedy or not, it's a free market right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost of maintaining an online server is something for the planning department of a game studio to figure out before shipping a game out, not after. That's like deactivating your Photoshop license, selling it to someone else, and then having Adobe complain that you need to pay them extra to recieve updates.

Except that part of the reason that Adobe charge so much for their creative suite is so that updates are provided and support is offered for a long period of time. However, if game developers raised the cost of all games (regardless of being first or second hand) to $100 then everyone would complain that it's not fair, it's not how it used to be, and they'll want to know where their money is going. Answer: support, updates, maintenance of online play for the next 5 years.

note: $100 was totally plucked out of the air to make the point

The way I look at it, you don't buy a used game to use it's MP but mainly for the campaign. You'd want a game that's populated on a daily basis (like Halo) that's a fairly new game and has currently supported online platform (live in this case)

So those people that buy the game for the campaign won't pay the $10 online licence, simple as.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With how cheap games drop in the UK/how many discount codes or cashback you can get I prefer buying new. The other week was the first time in ages I've bought second hand.

How do these sort of passes play out when you rent though? blink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know most games that have online play won't allow you to deactivate your account.

Then maybe that is the biggest problem.

No because I don't have any physical media or n64 games or ps1/2 games right? Stop assuming and putting words into my mouth.

Gee, aren't you the insecure one. I distinctly remember saying that it was not an insult, just fact. I was going by what you said, which was, in case you forgot, "I didn't say that did I? I just said most of MY games are on steam, so I can't." You said most. Which means it's safe for me to assume that since you say that the majority of your games are Steam games, that you don't have enough physical games to understand why one would not want these types of media to just stack up and not use them. Obviously, I don't live at your house and don't know what you own, so I can only assume by what you tell me.

Oh and btw, in another thread, weren't you one of the people claiming piracy is terrible because its not supporting devs?

Uh, no, that wasn't me, don't know why you're being such a prick because A) that's unrelated, and B), my stance on privacy is simple: either have the testicles to admit you do it and leave it at that, rather than trying to justify it with pathetic excuses. But like I said, that's not related, so why not try to stay mature, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then maybe that is the biggest problem.

Nope. Because you aren't buying the game, you're just buying a license to use that game. And that license is related to you only, not the guy you sell it to.

Gee, aren't you the insecure one. I distinctly remember saying that it was not an insult, just fact. I was going by what you said, which was, in case you forgot, "I didn't say that did I? I just said most of MY games are on steam, so I can't." You said most. Which means it's safe for me to assume that since you say that the majority of your games are Steam games, that you don't have enough physical games to understand why one would not want these types of media to just stack up and not use them. Obviously, I don't live at your house and don't know what you own, so I can only assume by what you tell me.

Except, yet again, nobody said don't sell them.

The online pass thing doesn't affect you selling the game. It affects the buyer.

Uh, no, that wasn't me, don't know why you're being such a prick because A) that's unrelated, and B), my stance on privacy is simple: either have the testicles to admit you do it and leave it at that, rather than trying to justify it with pathetic excuses. But like I said, that's not related, so why not try to stay mature, eh?

Well because piracy and used games have things in similar don't they?

When you buy a used game you aren't supporting the dev, you're supporting Gamestop. When you pirate a game, you aren't supporting the dev either. In both cases, the game company loses out on potential sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that part of the reason that Adobe charge so much for their creative suite is so that updates are provided and support is offered for a long period of time. However, if game developers raised the cost of all games (regardless of being first or second hand) to $100 then everyone would complain that it's not fair, it's not how it used to be, and they'll want to know where their money is going. Answer: support, updates, maintenance of online play for the next 5 years.

note: $100 was totally plucked out of the air to make the point

Which is fine, I think Adobe products are ridiculously overpriced, but the point was that the example matches. But see, raising the price won't work, because a standard price for games has been set, and already, as is, games are damn expensive. After you've bought three new games and a controller, you've already paid for your console over again. And no one wants to know that when they are shelling out $50 a year for Xbox Live that they have to pay yet another $10 to get their game online.

So those people that buy the game for the campaign won't pay the $10 online licence, simple as.

Seem this is what I don't understand, so perhaps I'll visualize it for you.

Each equal sign denotes one owner of a game that can go online:

= = = = = = = = = =

Now, one person decides they've had enough, and decides to sell his game. He is now no longer online:

= = = = = = = = = =

I come along, I buy the game from him for cheaper, and I decide to go back online. I have now replaced him.

= = = = = = = = = =

You see? Ten people started, and now there are still 10 people at the end, which incurs no extra cost on the servers an no extra money should be required. In fact, if the person who stopped playing did not sell his game, that still now means that there are nine people playing rather than 10, which is less load on the server, and ultimately even better for the company.

Of course, there needs to be a system of deactivating accounts, but look at the way Microsoft handles it: after your Gold subscription runs out, you have a Silver subscription, which includes the ability to do everything you could before, and retains your save files, but does not allow for multiplayer in games at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. Because you aren't buying the game, you're just buying a license to use that game. And that license is related to you only, not the guy you sell it to.

Semantics. I'm not renting the game out, I own it. It's not whether or not I paid for the license, it's the fact the license to be used by a single owner has been paid for. That single owner may change, but the money paid for that license does not get "unpaid" just because I sold it to someone else. What I gain from selling it to someone else does not concern the license that has been paid for the game already, it's just a personal benefit that I receive because I obviously will not give away my game for free.

Except, yet again, nobody said don't sell them.

Everyone is saying that selling these games secondhand/buying them secondhand is bad, which is the equivalent of suggesting not to sell them. Saying otherwise is just semantics, obviously, no one is going to listen to someone else on an internet forum tell them what or what not to do; they will, of course, suggest what is right and what isn't in their opinion.

The online pass thing doesn't affect you selling the game. It affects the buyer.

Which is why what makes more sense is a deactivation process, not charging the person who bought the used game over again when the person who has already paid for it has paid the dues for a single-license use of the online services. See my little diagram above if you're not sure why this works out perfectly. Even with no deactivation system, obviously, the person who sold you the game can't use it anymore, and by extension, can't use his online account for that specific game anymore, which now means that you are filling HIS space.

Well because piracy and used games have things in similar don't they?

Arguable, but I suppose so. Still, that has nothing to do with me or my opinions on piracy, you brought that up, not me.

When you buy a used game you aren't supporting the dev, you're supporting Gamestop. When you pirate a game, you aren't supporting the dev either. In both cases, the game company loses out on potential sales.

Right, but now you're blending back together the two elements which you separated before: online play and offline play. This whole time, you've been arguing in favor of online play being repaid for, and the above statement is now bringing offline play into the mix as well. Yes, when you pirate an offline game, the game company loses out on that potential sale. But no, with today's DRM protections, pirating an online game is much more difficult.

Anyways, I feel I'm getting off on a tangent here, and I'm really not interested in discussing piracy, because piracy involves absolutely no exchange of money whatsover in the whole process and the only reason you brought it up was in a weak attempt to make a personal jab at me and frankly, it's totally off topic. The point of the matter is that when you're buying a game from Gamestop, it ultimately was once bought new. Therefore, that single license has already been paid for. In terms of online play, the cost of the server for ONE person has already been factored into that price, and therefore, when the game exchanges hands to get to another person, the first person no longer has the game or the online access, and now, you, the new owner, are filling in the hole they left behind and ultimately, there is no new cost incurred at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you buy a used game you aren't supporting the dev, you're supporting Gamestop. When you pirate a game, you aren't supporting the dev either. In both cases, the game company loses out on potential sales.

I buy most of my games new, but I often sell them on once I've got all the enjoyment I can out of them (which can be as much as a year or two later). Why? Because I don't have a lot of space, and would rather someone else enjoy it than just throwing it away or shoving it in some dark corner of the house to gather dust. Also, to put money towards buying one of those new games the developers are so desperate to sell. Last month I sold a whole load of games on eBay and bought two new ones. If I hadn't sold the old games, I couldn't have bought the new ones. And it isn't like I'm selling a ?40 game on for ?40 either - even after a few months, some games just won't sell for more ?10. So if I or the purchaser has to pay ?10 for some online pass, I can't sell that game on and therefore can't buy a new one. Which overall means I buy fewer new games.

Seems to me that the big used game sellers are the ones the publishers and developers have the beef with, but they are happy to penalise the consumer for it instead. :s Gamestop will just deduct the online passes from the trade-in value, or make the purchasing consumer pay for the passes afterwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you guys are going to attempt to argue in favor of supporting the devs, don't bring up online play, try and argue for the offline play. If anything, it should be offline play that you're fighting for.

Let me dumb down my example for the sake of explanation. Here are 5 people who have bought a game that has online play. Each one of them, in the $50 they paid for their game, have already inclusively paid for the online service.

@ @ @ @ @

Owner number 4 has decided to sell his game to someone else:

@ @ @ # @

As you can see, there are still 5 people playing the game. There is no extra load on the server, and since the original Owner number 4 no longer has the game, he is no longer going online.

Therefore, the idea that a dev should recieve extra money in the form of you paying for an online code is just ridiculous. Why should you pay an extra $10 when the person before you has already paid for one person's online license, and you're just filling in that person's shoes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is fine, I think Adobe products are ridiculously overpriced, but the point was that the example matches. But see, raising the price won't work, because a standard price for games has been set, and already, as is, games are damn expensive. After you've bought three new games and a controller, you've already paid for your console over again. And no one wants to know that when they are shelling out $50 a year for Xbox Live that they have to pay yet another $10 to get their game online.

Seem this is what I don't understand, so perhaps I'll visualize it for you.

Each equal sign denotes one owner of a game that can go online:

= = = = = = = = = =

Now, one person decides they've had enough, and decides to sell his game. He is now no longer online:

= = = = = = = = = =

I come along, I buy the game from him for cheaper, and I decide to go back online. I have now replaced him.

= = = = = = = = = =

You see? Ten people started, and now there are still 10 people at the end, which incurs no extra cost on the servers an no extra money should be required. In fact, if the person who stopped playing did not sell his game, that still now means that there are nine people playing rather than 10, which is less load on the server, and ultimately even better for the company.

Of course, there needs to be a system of deactivating accounts, but look at the way Microsoft handles it: after your Gold subscription runs out, you have a Silver subscription, which includes the ability to do everything you could before, and retains your save files, but does not allow for multiplayer in games at all.

As far as I see it, the initial cost of the new game factors in a length of enjoyment online:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Player A gets the game, and plays it online:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Player A then sells the game to Player B, who plays the game after Player A has played it:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

However, as far as the overall length of time that has been played using that one game, it's this:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Which is now double the length of time that the game's original price had factored in. This is where the problem lies. So the solution is to either charge the second hand player for his/her time online, or raise the price of the game when it's new. And don't say that it wouldn't happen, since we've seen it happen with games these days charging ?45 for a new game compared to years ago when a new playstation title cost maybe ?35.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's not logical, that's just an arbitrary number that you've come up with, that the overall length of time that has been played increases costs at all.

Note: IN my example, I'm using the = signs to denote one user. You suddenly switched to using the = signs to denote amount of time. That's why your diagram does not make sense.

A proper game price includes the cost of online for x number of years. That number, x, was decided on after the game studio decides what the mean overall online lifetime of the game will be. After that point, it is assumed that the number of players playing that same game after x number of years has dropped, cancelling out any extended use of the game which goes past x number of years. Also, let's not forget that game servers never come with the promise of being online forever. Look at Bungie, finally cutting the cord on Halo 2's servers. Once teh lifetime of the game is finished, its online support will be deemed too expensive to keep going, and the decision to shut it down needs to be made, rather than offloading that expense on other consumers.

Game prices increase in cost not because of rising server costs, but because of hype. The more hyped up a game is, and the larger its fanbase, the more acceptable it is to sell it above the norm, and therefore, other game manufactures follow suite, slowly raising their prices up even more.

EDIT: Dammit, sorry, messed up my post a lot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although we're using the = sign for different uses, the diagram I've provided makes sense according to the point I'm making. You're right, the server load at any one time doesn't change due to second hand games. However, the length of time that a game is determined to be available to play online can change due to second hand buyers. The answer is to either charge the person who is already supporting the developers more money to extend the length of time that the game can be played online, or charge the person who isn't supporting the developers at all in order that they can play online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no need for publishers to charge for such, they could be moderate and just let it slide

Consumers don't want an image of these people being greedy to the last penny, it wouldn't be good business wise.

The developer argument I believe is just a bunch of hash, just like the RIAA saying "Artists get paid.." they don't..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would this apply to buying used cars? Used clothes? Used homes?

We should just buy everything new so that the original maker gets a full sale every time?

Incredible greed if you ask me.

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't understand the issue with this. The devs are wanting to charge for you to play online. You can't compare this to buying a car or clothes or any physical goods second hand. Essentially if you buy the game second hand and play online you are using their resources with out paying them. You can still play the offline game without paying the extra fee. They may not be happy about it but there's not much they can do about that. As for people posting 80's games and saying look how they have lost value that doesn't apply either. You can't play those online now anyway so you wouldn't be paying the extra fee. To compare it to buying a used car more accurately, it's like buying it and then expecting the manufacturer to service it for free while you have it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that by buying the game second hand, you're still showing up on their lists as a player that is playing online. With all the other second hand players doing the same, the game's popularity could show as going past it's intended lifespan, so the developers decide to keep the game running because that's what the players want. However, they've figured out that the popularity at that stage is coming from second hand players who have just started the game, who haven't paid the developers a penny and are using their service for free. What would you do if you were in their shoes? I'd either stop them or charge them for the service. Lo and behold, that's just what their doing.

Yes, you are showing up as playing online, replacing the person before you.

You're forgetting the fact that I said before: games, online and sometimes offline, have a mean playable life. Servers don't go on forever. Game devs are not under any pressure or mandate to keep a server running forever. A properly planned and marketed game will have a pre-set mean lifetime, and after that, the servers are shut down. They will have factored in the price of running the game online into the game's cost for that amount of years.

For instance. A projected timeline of life for a game is 6 years.

Start|---------------------------------------------------|End.

Within that time period, because the physical disk/virtual credentials are required to play the game, there are never more live bodies playing the game online than the ones that have paid for it. Therefore, there is no extra cost at all.

Now, if someone has bought this used game near the end of the life, whatever online play they get out of it is merely a bonus:

Start|---------------------------------------------------|Proposed End~~~~~~~~~~~<--Continued play

That continued play will only go for so long, because, at that point, the game devs will be ready to shut down the servers due to the usage dropping (which will happen), or to prepare for a new project or sequel. Like I said, game servers don't last forever, and a game studio that keeps its online servers simply for as long as here are people playing it, as admirable as it may be, are simply stupid. Projects need to advance, because in the case of these games, after 5 years, new consoles are being announced, new hardware technology and software advancements are being announced, and game studios need to prepare for that.

See, the ironic thing about this is that I can turn this whole situation around on you to show its ridiculousness. What if I have no intention of playing online? What if I only have an XBL Silver Membership? Why the hell should I have to pay for the online cost of a game when I don't want to play online? How would it be if I demanded a $10 discount on all the games I bought so that I can get a version that does not go online? But see, game studios aren't complaining about that one bit, and would NEVER agree to such a thing. Why? Because it's greed. They're getting extra cash from that in essence, and when that's happening, they're ok with not whining.

Obviously, in a realistic point of view, more people play online than offline. But the example remains; the game companies will only whine and pity-fish when they aren't benefiting from something.

Again, I'm only arguing in terms of the online play, not the offline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although we're using the = sign for different uses, the diagram I've provided makes sense according to the point I'm making. You're right, the server load at any one time doesn't change due to second hand games. However, the length of time that a game is determined to be available to play online can change due to second hand buyers. The answer is to either charge the person who is already supporting the developers more money to extend the length of time that the game can be played online, or charge the person who isn't supporting the developers at all in order that they can play online.

You posted this before I finished my reply, so read that. You really need to keep in mind that the cost-effectiveness of keeping a server online should not and cannot be correlated with the number of people playing it. In order for a game studio to be successful and modern, they need to have end-of-life cycles for all their online games.

It's a nice show of dedication to say "the servers will stay up as long as there are people playing" but it's a terrible choice in the bigger scheme of financial stability and success.

Basically, my stance is that I refuse to pay for a game studio's lack of financial planning, and I refuse to pay for the corporate greed that they want to charge me because they are not properly allocating their resources and not planning out the life-cycles of a game.

I'm not allowed to double-dip in terms of money, why should they be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Online play costs very real money to implement and support. Resales of a game only provides revenue to the retailer, with the publisher stuck paying the bills for the online features everyone uses.

How does that make any sense? Assuming the publisher allows free online play, what does it matter if the first buyer plays the game for two years, or if he sells it to another buyer after 6 months, that buyer plays for 6 months, then this happens two more times (for a total of 4 different players playing online over the course of 2 years)? Either way, the publisher's cost is the same.

If the publisher charges for online play, then the resale of used games is actually in the publisher's favor, since each buyer is going to be giving the publisher money. If resale of the games wasn't allowed, the publisher would only get money from the first buyer until he got tired of the game. At that point, the publisher's revenue stream from that game ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I may add, that since no money is being paid directly to the developer in a used-game sale, the dev is under no obligation to provide the new user with the same amount of online support as the person who bought it brand new.

This whole idea that the devs need to be paid over again is assuming that all gamers who buy secondhand are expecting the exact same number of years as the person who bought it brand new.......which they don't.

When you buy a used game you buy it with the realization that the moment the game came out, it's life-clock started ticking. You're only going to receive what's left of the time on that life-clock, the clock doesn't reset itself just because you now have the game and before you didn't.

Basically, we'll go by this example, that a game comes out in 2010 and has a 5 year estimated life and ends in 2015.

New Game Comes out 2010|---------- Life Cycle: Est 5 years-----------|2015 EOL (End Of Life)

Now, let's assume Person A buys this game on opening day for full price, brand new. He gets tired of it after 3 years, and sells it to Person B.

Person A purchases game when it comes out 2010|----------|Person A Sells to Person B 2013

Person B now understands this:

Person B Purchases Used Game 2013|-----Life Cycle Left: 2 years------|2015 EOL.

He understands that the EOL is still 2015, regardless of the fact he bought it late.

Person B is not stupid. He knows that this is NOT what will happen just because he bought the game late:

Person B Purchases Used Game 2013|-----Life Cycle Magically Starts Over again--------|2018 "new" EOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I see it, the initial cost of the new game factors in a length of enjoyment online:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Player A gets the game, and plays it online:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Player A then sells the game to Player B, who plays the game after Player A has played it:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

However, as far as the overall length of time that has been played using that one game, it's this:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Wrong point, if you include the 5 users as per the previous post

Player 4 drops out half way through and player 6 joins the length of time playing between 4 and 6 is the same as 1,2,3 and 5 no extra load. If player 4 never left the game and sold his copy the same time would still have been used..

So your point is invalid.

There is no more overhead on the server is someone sells a copy and another buys. The developers are losing money due to the shops getting ALL the profit from the used game sales.

The point of charging customers who buy used just to play online, has nothing to do with recouping server costs, it purely to gain monies from the missed retail sale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole argument is flawed by the fact that the Game Studios think gamers have unlimited amounts of money.

I buy a game, play it, sell it used, and use that money ( along with some of my own ) to buy a new game.. If I can't sell mine used, then I can't afford the new game, at least not till it drops in price. Congrats, all you've managed to do is make my buy the game when it's $30 rather than when it's $50, you just lost $20 profit, and that assumes 6months down the road I still care about your game, or just put that $30 towards another new $50 game and never play the middle one at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to post a long reply against Developers charging for used-game codes, but LiquidSolstice beat me to the point(s) I was going to make.

Licenses can transfer between customers through the used-game market with no difference to the developer. When games are sold used, it is not necessarily a loss of sale and it does not add to support costs. Developers need to plan, grow, shrink, and end their games' support based on number of licenses sold, not by the number of distinct players the game has ever had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another tale of the endless greed that makes up companies these days. What kind of absurd bull**** are they gonna say makes them lose 'so much money' next? Local Multiplayer options in (console) games where only one person in the room needs to own the game for everyone there to play? Actually i'd better not say that, as they probly WILL use that next, cause greed knows no bounds.

"In a literal way, when you purchase a game used, you are not a customer of theirs," Penny Arcade's Jerry Holkins wrote today. "If I am purchasing games in order to reward their creators, and to ensure that more of these ingenious contraptions are produced, I honestly can't figure out how buying a used game was any better than piracy. From the the perspective of a developer, they are almost certainly synonymous."

This guy has the be one of the most ignorant fools i've ever seen. You can't even come close to calling second hand games piracy cause piracy is STEALING. Used games on the other hand you still are PAYING for, regardless of who the money goes to. It'd be like saying a car a friend bought from another friend was 'stolen' cause he didn't buy it new. Anyone with a brain knows that arguement would never hold up, and nor does this guys statement in the quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy has the be one of the most ignorant fools i've ever seen. You can't even come close to calling second hand games piracy cause piracy is STEALING. Used games on the other hand you still are PAYING for, regardless of who the money goes to.

Not exactly lol. I can pay for software in China, doesn't mean its no longer piracy.

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.