Used Game Sales, What do you think?

So what do you think? Plenty of retail stores offer this program. Was just thinking about it since THQ has been proactive in combating this "problem."

The idea is to have a code for online play that can only be used once. If bought used, have to pay an additional amount to use the code.

Homefront to Feature THQ's Online Pass; Multiplayer Available but Capped for Secondary Users - Shacknews - PC Games, PlayStation, Xbox 360 and Wii video game news, previews and downloads

Personally I think it's just another dumb idea from companies who fail to comprehend why Gamers resort to buying second hand. The game simply isn't worth the full price for a 5 hour campaign of garbage and forgettable multiplayer.

I also don't see much difference between waiting for a game to be bought used for $25 or getting a game on sale on Steam for $9.99. Shouldn't THQ be more angry at Steam giving away their entire THQ pack for $50 for 50 games (I'm exaggerating)?

 

Steam doesn't give it away at arbitrarily low prices. The prices are set by the publishers, even with sales.

 

Definitely it is another way for companies to impose DRM-like schemes into practice. Though this is not entirely new: EA provided free DLC to Dragon Ange and Mass Effect 2 by the use of a 1-use-only code. If the code is already used and the user wants that DLC (that's it: if the game is bought used...) they can pay 15 bucks for it.

In regards to your last comment... it makes no sense. The discounts at Steam have to be deals with the games publishers, not a 1-sided decision (unless Steam wants to make no money... which is odd for a company...).

 

Also, actually part of these low price deals from digital distribution providers (like Steam) are based on calculations from publishers that even at a discounted price its better that way than having those potential buyers going into the used game market (where publishers make no profit).

 

Right, so THQ wouldn't care say if they got 5% kickback on the used game sales from Gamestop?

Hmm seems THQ just hasn't figured out how to make a good game that gets the masses to rush out and buy. But implementing dumb ideas like this is going to improve Gamers wanting to buy THQ games?

Haha! Now that's comedy!

 

Truth be told, Valve is probably the most responsible for killing off PC used game sales. Not that I'm really complaining.

I've seen a bunch of PC Gaming websites pick up this story and lots of PC gamers getting angry at this policy and threatening to boycott this game. However we're the least effected by this news.

1. As stated before used PC game sales are almost non-existent now.

2. Homefront is going to be using Steamworks, so we're most likely not going to even have to bother with this.

 

buying used games is always a bad idea for PC...since CD key redistration to online servers and limited key use and keys being tired to an account. I bought HL2 and totally forgot about the CD-key being binded to a steam account....a dumb move by me not thinking. I did that in the time period of not playing games or using steam for a couple years so i forgot lol. So i donated 10 bucks to a guy in my unit lol

or pirate it ^^

 

ops double post wasn't payign attention plz delete

 

Used games is the biggest problem for publishers to combat right now. used games are sold to people who will actually buy the games (not pirates) but are enticed by slightly cheaper prices for the same item. publishers and developers get nothing from used game sales. the seller gets everything. its really just a vulture tactic. however, i think that devs should just add an extra piece of dlc to new buyers. i think dragon age did great with that. the whole online pass thing just is really low. it sucks. however, the used sellers also need to promote the new games specifically because of these. which they wont.

 

i think its dumb....think about books...who wants to keep a book they already read? No one. They rather sell it for half price and use that money to get another book. I think games should be no different.

 

Punishing people for buying used is not the answer. Maybe enticing them, as suggested above, with added content is a way to bring in more money. So is the lower-priced sales at Steam and the like. This is the same garbage we have been hearing for decades (I recall Garth Brooks coming out against used music in the 80s well before consumers could make digital copies and when a blank CD cost $15), but people should have a right to sell a game they are finished with.

 

I personally would love to see this ruled illegal under first sale, but of course that's never going to happen. Multiplayer functionality comes with the game, and you bought the game, you should be allowed to sell/rent everything in the game.

And for anyone who cries "but the publishers don't make any money from used games," I hope you never drove a used car in your life, or bought a house someone else lived in previously. If Ford or Honda sold you a car but forced you to remove the engine before selling it to anyone else, they'd be out of business and probably sued really fast.

 

i absolutely agree with that. however, books cost far less to make than games. hence why publishers want to cash in on used sales. they should add dlc incentives to new buyers, and allow used buyers to purchase said dlc. however. the DLC should only add to the game. it shouldnt be integral. the stone prisoner dlc was a great example. however, if your dlc is an online pass (im looking at you hot pursuit) than your just a jerk of a publisher.

 

That's not an excuse. That just shows how bad their business is. If a few million sales doesn't equal a profit regardless of second hand sales just shows how inept these publishers or developers are then.

Why is it some of the best games are by small developers and not giant developers? How is it Tripwire Interactive continues to develop? It's just greed is what it is.

 

it's intellectual property. its completely different than a car.

it's more like paying to go see a movie at the movie theater, finishing the movie, and then being able to resell your movie ticket to someone else.

(ok - it isn't exactly like that, but it is more like that than the used car)

the problem is that it is intellectual property and not physical property. the disc you get is just a storage medium, you are paying for the license to play the game.

i'm not saying you should change your mind about whether or not you should be able to resell the license to play the game, but you should at least have a formal understanding of the problem. the disc is worthless - you could buy a game not on a disc or make 1000 copies of the disc for marginal cost. so, when you sell someone else the game you are selling them what was your license to play the game.

even i agree - you should be able to buy a game, play it, finish it, and then sell it. but, i also acknowledge that this is much more gray area than being able to resell physical property.

 

dvds......VHS.....CDs......all sellable....bad point

 

the medium doesn't matter - that's my whole point. storage mediums are all marginal cost. you are not paying for the physical property, you are paying for a license to play the game.

 

my point was all of those can be reselled no problem....no one asks questions if cds or vhs or dvds or blue-rays or anything else like that is sold. It's all cool and no DRM bs in the way. Gamers its a freakin nightmare. Games should be no different than those stated above

 

Not just any games are a nightmare though...only PC games. XBOX360 or PS3 games? Those are easy to sell....no stupid activation tied to them. Just pop it in, load it up, and play. Sell when you're finished with no consequence

 

true forgot about those...proving my point exactly

 

this doesn't prove your point against mine. we just aren't communicating our ideas accurately enough. we aren't really arguing different things here.

I'm saying that movies, music, video games, etc. are all intellectual property. All of that is gray area (as to how far your license ownership rights *should* extend). There is value in experiencing the content, and it's a difficult topic as far as how these content makers should be compensated by those who have experienced it.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to resell games, movies, music, etc.

I am saying that when you buy a music CD, your aren't buying the CD - you are buying access to the content on the CD. Same with games, movies, etc. That makes it very different than material property, such as a car. If you can't figure out the difference between reselling a vehicle and reselling a music CD, movie, or video game, then you have made a serious oversight.

 

True. There's a difference between physical properties (i.e. cars) with respect to media (like music, movies, games). The difference is that in the media you buy a license, and so far so good. The problem is game companies are trying to force severe restrictions on the licenses like forcing to register (activation codes) permanently games into accounts (EA, for example) and thus making in practice imposible to resell a (PC) game.

To alleviate some of these issues we have very good deals from online distributors (like Steam or D2D), yet I am not sure both tendencies go together.

 

i disagree. I consider a CD and games to be physical property and you own it since you bought it. It isn't a license to play unless you rent it. I bought the game in the store so now it is mine and not yours. I own it so i reserve the right to do whatever i please under legal law...i may agree or disagree with current laws but i physically own the game and i should be able to trade and sell my game. Just like i did with my NES. Now with steam its a different issue since i am a registered user and my games are binded to my account. Now i do believe that I have the right to sell my account even though steam disagrees.

EDIT: Also I own the physical game so i should be able to lend it to anyone. Now of course duplication is out of the question. Because i bought 1 copy. Not unlimited. Unless the seller denotes otherwise.

 

see but that is your opinion, thats the problem. the EULA on all of these games clearly says you are paying for a licence, not the game. now, in my opinion, the games i buy are mine as well, but legally there is no ground to stand on.

 

You buy it, you play it, it's yours. Maybe not technically under the law, but for all intents and purposes it is. In fact, it's referred to as a sale in all the marketing material that's out there, and you're only informed it's a "license" after you open the package and try to install the software, after which you can't return it anyways. Since you don't even have to accept any type of "agreement" (which I think should be void on principle no matter when it's accepted) at the time of sale (which is, not so coincidentally, the only point at which a decision to decline the agreement would not mean you're out the price of the game), I think there's even a strong case to be made that any type of license agreement at the time of installation is a legally unconscionable contract of adhesion and should be thrown out by a judge.

Sure, you're not supposed to make copies for other people, but you can't do that with a car either. In that way, copyright law makes it the same as if it was a physical object like a car. Just because some people choose to break the law does not mean that first sale should not apply to something that for all practical purposes we own with the same restrictions (can't distribute copies) as if we owned a car. This holds true even if you are of the opinion that DRM can be "necessary" to prevent piracy - the DRM does not have to prevent you from selling your game. And indeed it doesn't, for anything other than PC games. Even used copies of Windows can be sold and will still work.

And if companies are so upset that they lose money from the used game market, maybe they should (gasp!) keep pumping out new products that people will actually want to buy. That's how it works for any manufacturer of physical goods.

Just imagine the issues we'd face if Star Trek-style replicators were actually invented... the patent infringement issues surrounding 3D printing are already going to be bad!

 

EULA is not a law. It is a sketchy agreement. Just like apple says you can only run mac OS on their over prices hardware....please spare me. I would love to see them sue me for that one.

 

I'd love to see someone, or maybe a cracker group, buy a game, hack the installer to not show the EULA message, and distribute a patcher program containing their own code (and none of the game developer's copyrighted code, so it would be legal in the same way a ROM patch is legal to download while a ROM is not) which, when run on an .iso rip of the game in question, modifies the setup file that is present to also not display the EULA. Since the whole EULA concept is based on a so-called "voluntary" acceptance of a contract when the installer is run, and since neither the hacker nor the user of the installer patch would ever have to click "I Accept" before installing the game, they would theoretically still retain ownership of their particular copy of the software rather than a license with limited terms.

 

lol that would be funny.

 

The physical CD is your (worthless) physical property. The content on the disc is not. Do you *really* disagree, or do you just not want to agree?

Keep in mind, there is no question about this. That is how it works. If you believed that you owned the content on the disc, there would be no moral or legal problems with making copies of the content and selling them (because you own the content). Clearly, you don't think this way. I said before that you are buying access to the content, you said you disagree, but I know you don't, and you are just being argumentative

What is questionable is the legal status of the right of first sale with regard to computer software in general (regardless of the EULA). It is still contested legal area, you can read about it on the internets.

 

Here's how I believe that companies like EA and Valve see it.

Take the average 16 year old high school kid who just got a cool computer from his uncle and now he wants to play games, but he doesn't have any cash. So he calls up his techie friend and asks if he has any games that he can borrow and play and the techie friend says no, because of the restrictions imposed on the game. So the 16 year old goes "hmm are there any ways I can get some games?". The techie says sure just go torrent some of them. Okay. So now the 16 year old kid has torrented some games and is enjoying them. He torrents tf2 and realizes that the online doesn't work. He calls up his techie friend and explains that tf2 doesn't work and the techie begins to explain to his friend how valve did such and such so people can legally pay and play their games. So now the 16 year old can either continue playing his games that restrict online gameplay or he can continue playing his singleplayer games that don't require activation and can easily be cracked. Now imagine if you don't need a validation code and all this activation junk then what would have the 16 yr old have done? Simple. Torrent the singleplayer games and borrow or get a burned copy of online games off his techie friend. How much did he spend on video games? Absolutely nothing. Just download and get copies off people.

But in all honesty I don't have a real opinion on used game sales, copyright infringement, etc etc. I just wait till the game is on sale, buy it, and enjoy it. I've never sold any of my games and I don't see myself doing it in the near feature.

 

it apllies to most recent games no matter the platform.
EA and THQ in paticular enforce the online pass so umm yeah

 

I have no problem with buying used, as I have done this on many occasion from craigslist etc... but I have a HUUUGE problem with Gamestop and other stores charging $2-$5 less than the brand new copy, for a used copy. Who the f**k falls for that bs. Seriously? If you want a deal buy from craigslist or a forum or something. Those Gamestop/Best Buy used prices are a total joke. And then they want to sell you disc insurance for $4. Oh that's totally worth it too!

And this online pass garbage is more BS.

Publisher: "We have to maintain servers for people who never generated revenue for us...blah blah blah."

Uhm hello... if someone gave up/sold their copy of a game they are no longer playing online. So user numbers are still the same, regardless of used game sales.