Used Games = Piracy?

[Jagos]

Originally Posted by Yumil

Here's the thing. They aren't destroying the used game market, they aren't really trying to. They are just trying to get back some money with the tactics of charging for online play(requires entities outside the disk) and dlc(requires data outside the disk).

Get back? They made the money the first time. Just because they feel entitled to a used gamer's money doesn't necessarily make it so.

Theres a reason why MMO's require a monthly fee(or an adequate micro-transaction model) as it's expensive to continue to maintain and update old products. Patches that fix vital parts of the game should be free(as in the Backbreaker patch which actually has made the game playable), but anything extra should have a charge.

Odd... DFO is free along with DnD Online (3D). DnD Online did rather well considering the fact that it was once considered a WoW killer. Nowadays, it does well by selling more content online. All of that money goes into maintaining the game. But if there IS a way to not have a monthly fee, people can usually find it.

We've been getting free online play for a long time, perhaps they've started seeing a dip in their products as used copies proliferate their userbase. We don't have all the data, but I can see where they calculate the time one copy would use their resources and have that all included in the price. In that case, any additional transfer would significantly alter the profitability of that price they calculated for one household to have the one disc. One can't charge the first owner for the 10 people who are going to use it used in a daisy chain of transactions. This is where this model comes in.

I'm calling shenanigans. The used gamers add TO the database, not take from it. Think about if ONLY new gamers were allowed to be in a game. Now imagine that some children buy the game four months later from Gamestop.

How exactly is that a bad thing? Now that they've effectively taken that option away, what's probably going to happen is more people turn in the game out of frustration and it limits their market. Basically THQ just stabbed themselves in the foot without realizing that they're hemorrhaging yet.

In Smackdowns case they feel that $10 is what a single household will use on average with online play before they get bored and stop using it. It's included in the original price, but since it's an ongoing cost to Smackdown, it's not transferable like the disc.

And again, I'll say that it's a fixed cost. The only thing that may be negotiable is the server but that can't be THAT expensive compared to other costs of gaming.

EDIT: Generally one rents a game to play the single player. It sucks if you want to test online first before you buy it(perhaps they should have some sort of trial for each individual machine), but the main reason is still there. This method may not work on primarily online games(Shooters for the most part), but works on ones that had proved profitable before their online modes were introduced.

Yep, so they've effectively gimped Gamefly, Gamestop, and anyone else holding these games. Oh, and those codes? $10 per person per rental...

They've just helped them make MORE money!

[Krylo]

Jagos--In every part you quoted Yumil was talking about server costs.

They're getting back the money they spend on server maintenance and bandwidth. He never talked about increasing the number of users in the database, he said they were possibly seeing a dip in profits due to a combination of server maintenance and used copies proliferating.

Further, server costs aren't a fixed cost, nor is bandwidth. It must be maintained and paid for by someone, and a used game buyer isn't contributing toward that cost, even as they use the server.

ALSO: DFO and DDO use microtransitions. It's 'free to play' but they still charge their players. Unless you're recommending that THQ present microtransistions to pay for their servers, that whole paragraph makes no sense.

You seem to have completely misunderstood everything he was saying.

[Yumil]

I will admit that I didn't type up what I was saying very well. The part he misconstrued about players in the database is very hard to read at the start.

Basically, they calculate the cost and how long they think the average buyer will play the game online. They put that towards the purchase. Used games are outside this calculation. They are merely trying to fix a drip. They earn a profit either way, but they earn more this way and it's actually fair to ask money for it as it's a cost they have for the life of the game.

[Jagos]

What I'm saying is that perhaps there are better ways than gimping their game to the detriment of the used game market.

By charging for online play, it makes the game seem less valuable (if the customer knows that) because A) they might have a defective copy or B) they might not know about the $10 code that they're not used to doing. This may effectively split the market for the game maker's game. Also, less people will rent the game because of this split. One of two things could occur for Gamefly or other rental/used game stores. Add the $10 code to the price or warn people about this online disconnect. So again, this limits their market.

My stance is more or less that they'll have even more unintended consequences of 1) making the used game market stronger against this specific deal or 2) causing people to shop elsewhere for this niche game.

In regards to the server costs, I would need to see their numbers for the last 2 games to say that they're doing better or worse. This may be more an experiment on how people may shy away from this game because the DRM/DLC might be too confusing to some.

[Yumil]

My proposed solution would be to add a system to give a free trial to each individual console.

Like, record the MAC address and give them 10 days and explain to them that they either need to input their code that comes with the game or if they bought it used to purchase the online functionality.

[Nique]

Originally Posted by Krylo

No one who isn't a raging moron is saying that it is theft.

But morons who people listen to are unfortunately. Hence my mild ragepost.

As far as DLC and subscription services... Look as long as I'm being sold a complete game right off the bat, whatever. If they want to give freebies as an incentive (and not actually remove something crucial and "give" it to new buyers) to purchase a title new, well that's already done to some degree. Tycho's post though isn't talking solely about online games or DLC, unfortunately, and pretty well pissed me off.

[Specterbane]

Ultimately it seems like the developers have adopted the mind set of "if you're not with us you're against us" and don't want to allow the customer the right to get back some of the money they paid when they're done with it. To me that's the whole point of selling a used game.

If I'd never heard anything about taking away online multi-player I doubt I ever would've given it much though. Because at that point it's not much different than offering a nifty special gun as an incentive to pre-order customers, just extended to all new buyers now as well.

Did anyone ever ask the question of what happens when someone buys a game in new condition but months later on the back stock?

[krogothwolf]

Originally Posted by Specterbane

Did anyone ever ask the question of what happens when someone buys a game in new condition but months later on the back stock?

Anything New gets shipped with a slip in it with a code. Regardless of whether its "old" if it's New all products get shipped the same.

That's another grumble. Video Games don't really drop in price as they age while the console they are on is "current generation" they generally stick at the $60 price point for 2 years. It doesn't really make sense to me that they do this to be honest.

I do agree with the "issue trail code" for multiplayer for used/rental copies though. I can live with that.

[Viridis]

More PA Words:

It turns out that used games are a tremendously controversial issue. Part of the reason response to the comic and post has been so massive is that (aside from our inflammatory presentation) this conversation has been a long time coming. The thing for the commentariat to do about this issue typically is to carve out as populist a stance as possible, to cluck and tut tut about it so as to ingratiate themselves to you as much as possible, and then follow up by posting a picture of a belt buckle. That strikes me as a bit precious.
Because this is the Internet, every argument was spun in a centrifuge instantly and reduced down into two wholly enraged, radically incompatible contingents, as opposed to the natural gradient which human beings actually occupy.
People who buy used games are not pirates, by definition. Used games (used everything, really) are and will continue to be a legal and protected form of commerce. Other industries have done what they can to co-opt, destroy, or harvest those markets, but their existence is settled law. What I have said is that the end result of that purchase from a developer perspective must be indistinguishable. Isn't it? That is the question I couldn't answer. I still can't answer it. And because I couldn't, I had to change the way I invested my leisure dollar.
People want to talk about used cars, or libraries, or any other thing really, but I'm not talking about the universe in general - I'm talking about the tiny part of it I have any control over. That bit up there is the part I can't resolve: the moral dimension contained within the purchase. Yes, I'm giving somebody money when I buy used. Is that sufficient? What is the end result, and what systems am I sustaining by doing so?
I'd rather not think about things like this, believe me. I'd rather be Mr. Perpetual Good Times, but I'm not built that way. On the whole, I'd say thinking has been a tremendous inconvenience.
(CW)TB
please don't insist

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Viridis

More PA Words:

Those are... words, alright. I can't figure out if they actually say anything meaningful, though.