Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Having to pay for multiplayer content.... its coming.

  • 20-05-2010 11:19pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,207 ✭✭✭


    Game developers are this summer going to start implementing "online passes" system in new games.

    What does this mean for you and me?

    Well when you buy a new game you will also get a code you need to enter to validate the copy you have for online content like multiplayer.
    Its a one time code so if you trade in the game the online is useless unless you pay more (approx 5eur) to activate the online content for yourself.

    Basically game developers get around 12eur on every 60eur game sold, when you trade this in to say gamestop when its re sold all the money goes to gamestop.
    As far as the developers are concerned this is a big loss as another person who buys the game second hand is someone who DIDNT buy it new and give a cut to them.... enter, online pass system.

    THQ are implementing this in the new UFC game and EA will be doing likewise later in the year. I for one will vote with my wallet and wont be buying new games with this "feature". Out and out greed on developers behalf in my opinion. In terms of the UFC game, I WAS going to buy this new as have been interested in getting more into UFC as a sport but this is a slap in the face.

    What do you think? Would you pay additional money to play this online bearing in mind we already pay yearly for the network in place to host the content?


    Source:
    http://xbox360.gamespy.com/xbox-360/ufc-undisputed-2010/1091592p1.html


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,728 ✭✭✭dazftw


    Trying to get back some of those used game sales.. I see nothing wrong with it really. I usually buy multiplayer games new anyway.

    Network with your people: https://www.builtinireland.ie/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,516 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    dazftw wrote: »
    Trying to get back some of those used game sales.. I see nothing wrong with it really. I usually buy multiplayer games new anyway.

    Same i cant see anything wrong with this, they are loosing a lot of sales through second hand stuff and im the same i dont mind buying a game second for single player but just dont when it comes to multiplayer


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,955 ✭✭✭rizzla


    I don't see anything wrong with it. My bro bought skate 3 so he got the skate share code that came with it, so I'll be buying that when it hits the marketplace. My only gripe is you couldn't buy it day 1 the game went on sale, in fact you still can't buy it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,585 ✭✭✭Jerichoholic


    It's wrong, we already pay a subscription to play online with gold accounts. I could see EA doing it since they have their own servers to maintain, but you can't play EA games with a silver account. If xbox live becomes free then it wouldn't be so bad, but this is not a good thing whatsoever.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,732 ✭✭✭Reganio 2


    I am with others I fail to see how an extra fiver is going to kill people. You can either buy the game new for 60 quid or wait a while get it for 30 and pay an extra 5 quid I don't see how its that bad. Might also stop people illegaly getting the games although 1 thing this is bad for is the likes of Xtravision.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,126 ✭✭✭✭calex71


    My biggest issue with it is that Gamestop etc won't be dropping their prices anytime soon so effectively if you buy a second hand game you will end up pay nearly the same as new if you want to play on line.

    How is this any different to buying a 2nd hand car? Garage gives you x for your old banger and adds y to it and out on the forecourt it goes to be sold to someone else, that person won't have to pay ford or bmw etc 10-25% of the car's original value to drive it on a motorway. ea want to charge 800ms points and thq 400 if you buy their games 2nd hand.

    I always trade old for new anyway which in fact helps their sales I feel. If this effects the cost i get for a trade in or selling on adverts, it would force me to buy less games. As I simply could not afford them :(

    Anyway it's there IP and their are entitled to charge what they want i guess :mad:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,067 ✭✭✭Gunmonkey


    Apart froom the hypocrisy of people claiming developers are "greedy" when they try to stop people giving them the middle finger by buying a used game for €5 less, its worrying when stores like Gamestop are reporting $2 Billion in sales over just the previous financial quarter when I suspect the majority of their sales are from selling used games at ridiculous prices.

    I dont see how the €5 licenses are so bad, it will only affect you if you dont buy new.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭Adamcp898


    How will this work for rented games though?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,126 ✭✭✭✭calex71


    Gunmonkey wrote: »
    Apart froom the hypocrisy of people claiming developers are "greedy" when they try to stop people giving them the middle finger by buying a used game for €5 less

    You think the developer will see much of it ? I think most of it will go to publishers like EA, who are not charging and extra €5, it's more like $10 :eek:
    There was a link to this on their site last week which escapes me at the moment.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,906 ✭✭✭EGriff


    Adamcp898 wrote: »
    How will this work for rented games though?

    I think you get a 7 day trial online without the code. At least thats what EA are doing.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,320 ✭✭✭v3ttel


    I'm all for game developers getting a bigger slice of the cut (its where I'd like to end up eventually), but this is not the answer.

    Surely, game developers can work out a deal to get a slice of profit for second hand games? That would be a much more reasonable solution.

    I need to pay two companies if I want to play online? So if I want to pay UFC 2010 online and see a bargain second hand copy, firstly I've to pay MS to access the general Xbox live service, and then I have to pay THQ to access that specific service also?

    Adding fuel to the piracy fire imo. Its like they are trying to fleece customers every which way.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,284 ✭✭✭RobertFoster


    calex71 wrote: »
    My biggest issue with it is that Gamestop etc won't be dropping their prices anytime soon so effectively if you buy a second hand game you will end up pay nearly the same as new if you want to play on line.
    From my experience, there's very little difference in price anyway. Buy new for €60 or second hand for €55.
    calex71 wrote: »
    How is this any different to buying a 2nd hand car?
    You don't buy a new car and then trade it in a week later.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,067 ✭✭✭Gunmonkey


    calex71 wrote: »
    You think the developer will see much of it ? I think most of it will go to publishers like EA, who are not charging and extra €5, it's more like $10 :eek:
    There was a link to this on their site last week which escapes me at the moment.

    While the developer may or may not get any of the license cash, the publisher will be able to shore up some of the lost revenue opportunities from the used games market, and so will be more prone to green lighting a sequel or another project by the development team. Pure speculation on my part though, publishers could give the devs the middle finger either.

    And the UFC 2010 code costs $5 (so about €3.50 on XBLA and €5 on PSN), EA Sports codes are set at $10. Plus most EA Sports developers are owned by EA itself, so if the parent company does good the developer does too.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭Simon Gruber Says


    This has sorta happened already with BFBC2. When you buy it new, you get the "VIP" code which unlocks a couple maps already loaded on the disc and one or two future map packs. However, if you buy it second hand, it's pretty much guarenteed that the code will be used and you'll have to fork out 1200 M$ points to unlock those maps.

    So, the fiver or so you'd save buying this game second hand is instantly lost(and more) if you plan on playing it online.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 761 ✭✭✭ClayDavis


    Surely most games you buy second hand you buy a while after the release date ?

    Wouldn't most of the online community for that game have dissapated by then?

    It is kind of bull but I can see why they want to start charging for this because their sales are negatively impacted by retailers agressively pushing used games.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,585 ✭✭✭Jerichoholic


    I dunno about that, I was playing Call of Juarez 2 online yesterday and there were plenty of players about.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭Slugs


    People we seem to be missing the point here... It's not the fact that we're paying ONLY €5 for this new implementation, it's the fact that we have to pay at all. Why the **** should I have to pay €5 to a company if I'm already paying €6.99 a month for xbox live?! We are already paying for live, the fact that we're even paying that is a joke in and of itself. If this is brought in, there's going to be serious issues.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,559 ✭✭✭ricman


    Say you buy tiger woods 2009, in 2 years they close down the servers so you cannot play it.Most games released have tiny amounts of people playing them online after 6 months.Games cost millions to make so i its understandable why they want to do this.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,618 ✭✭✭Mr Freeze


    So just to be clear, If I buy a game new, it comes with a code that enables online play.

    If I buy it used, I will have to pay extra if I want to play online.

    I have no problem with this, as I buy my games new anyways.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,736 ✭✭✭OctavarIan


    Slugs wrote: »
    People we seem to be missing the point here... It's not the fact that we're paying ONLY €5 for this new implementation, it's the fact that we have to pay at all.

    More money to developers is a very very good thing. For the portion of games with worthwhile online features, paying €5 won't kill you when you're already paying half price for the preowned game.
    Slugs wrote:
    Why the **** should I have to pay €5 to a company if I'm already paying €6.99 a month for xbox live?!

    You're paying Microsoft €6.99 a month, not the 'company'.
    Slugs wrote:
    We are already paying for live, the fact that we're even paying that is a joke in and of itself. If this is brought in, there's going to be serious issues.

    There won't be serious issues. If people can pay up to €20 for ****e DLC they can pay €5 to play online.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,955 ✭✭✭rizzla


    LIGHTNING wrote: »
    Yup thats my beef, if they are charing 5e to play the game online then they should allow silver xbox live accounts to play online. I think a few of the gaming sites have sent emails to microsoft regarding this issue. I think we are on a slippery slope with this 5e online thing, I can see it getting worse.

    Yeah but you only have to pay it if you buy it preowned there is no charge for buying it new. If you have a silver account why the hell pay the €5, you can't play online anyway, you just have a silver account.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,955 ✭✭✭rizzla


    LIGHTNING wrote: »
    No point is that if you pay the 5e with a silver account you should be able to then play it online. Microsoft should have a exemption for those games.

    I can see why people on the gold package would have a gripe with this but if you have a silver account, there's no reason for you to pay this €5, as your already on a silver account and probably don't care about online gaming anyway.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,955 ✭✭✭rizzla


    LIGHTNING wrote: »
    But as gold members we are paying most in order to play online, paying again to play a game online isnt fair. I dont always buy games new so why should I be punished.

    Because the game you buy preowned is money into the pocket of gamestop etc, and nothing goes to the hardworking developers of the game your currently enjoying. Some see it at punishment to the gamers, others as justice for the developers.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,763 ✭✭✭alastair_doom


    Doubt people will be paying €5 extra to play a second hand games. Places like gamestop will have to drop the price of second hand games to make them worthwhile if they want people to keep buying secondhand.

    Its just the money will be better distributed.

    The only people who this should affect is those who trade in new-ish games.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,871 ✭✭✭Karmafaerie


    I really can't understand the attitude some are having here.

    It's as simple as this.
    Gamestop and the like, as well as us gamers have been enjoying a somewhat flawed system for some time.

    The game industry is quiet often one of very low margins of profit.
    Most games don't even make a profit.

    You buy a game for €60.00 and sell it to Gamestop for €20 and they sell it off for €40.
    The next person is getting the game for €40.00

    9/10 in the exact same condition as when bought new.


    The online community of games costs money to maintain, to moderate, to improve and update.

    It's a rolling progression.

    Games like Halo 3 which is well over 2 and a half years old, still costs Bungie a tonne to maintain.

    So I don't care about paying a bit extra if I'm buying a seond hand game.


    If I buy something in cheap in a sale I don't bitch if it's not all I was expecting.
    You get what you pay for.

    If brand new games had extra charges it would be different.
    This is a case where Gamestop (et all) should shoulder some of the costs.

    They're making massive profits simply for stoing something on their shelves and selling it on.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,084 ✭✭✭Grumpypants


    I would prefer if they reduced the cost of the game by 5 euro then you had to buy a code for the multiplayer aspect. When you consider the majority of multiplayer parts to games are just tacked on as an after thought and i rarely have any use for.

    Maybe give you a taste for free for 2 days then you buy the code to unlock the rest.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,140 ✭✭✭✭TheDoc


    Good business on their part.

    They are losing out big time on the trade in market whilst the likes of gamestop make a fortune, remember the devs and publishers have no say on the pricing of the second hand market.

    Its essentially the wild west for shops like gamestop.

    The only downside I can see if the trade in value from gamestop to trade in customers falling. I'm sure the lack of instant multiplayer access will allow them to fork out less cash for second hand games.

    Can also see them hiking up the sale prices due to " you need this to play multiplayer"

    Its a sad day that this is the way console gaming is gone. MY 360 of many a year aprted company with me last week and I've no regrets. I play world of warcraft and its the only game I'm going to play for years to come, they will release another mmo and ill continue playing it.

    Blizzard are one of thsoe devs that give their customers bundles of value. I pay about 120-160 euro a year for world of warcraft, thats the price of 2-3 xbox games new, and I can tell you they just dont compare when it comes to value for money.

    I've always being an advocate of avoiding trade in shops, never used them and never will. I've made happier people from just handing my games over to friends or family, selling them or just advertising them on boards.

    I'd rather let a game gather dust then hand it into gamestop, although I'm utterly biased against them, due to how much I hate them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 261 ✭✭helios12


    I have to say I'm a little sickened by people who accept this stuff so readily.

    You pay a yearly subscription to Xbox Live plus over -inflated game prices. Dedicated servers? nope. Free content? nope. Go on and buy yourself a little jacket for your avatar when you get back from paying 60 quid for a game and don't concern yourself with all that lag.:rolleyes:

    For the record, the person who mentioned it being grand cos the second -hand price will drop to 30 euro. Only after many months will you get a good game for that price second hand in any of the games shops -by that stage no one is playing it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,084 ✭✭✭Grumpypants


    It is weird how easily people accept these things without thinking them through.

    At the moment shops sell new releases at a very cheap price (HMV 45 euro for example) and give you a ok trade in price. For example i had Alan Wake traded it in for Red dead for 12 euro. Which was ok. HMV do this becasue they know they will make more profit from selling alan Wake second hand than red dead new.

    Without that big profit margin on trade ins they will have to make it on new games. So all this will do is push up the price of new games reduce the price they will give you for second hand games and add an extra cost to buying second hand games.

    But the publishers just say its hurting developers and everyone rolls over and has their belly tickled.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,955 ✭✭✭rizzla


    It is weird how easily people accept these things without thinking them through.

    At the moment shops sell new releases at a very cheap price (HMV 45 euro for example) and give you a ok trade in price. For example i had Alan Wake traded it in for Red dead for 12 euro. Which was ok. HMV do this becasue they know they will make more profit from selling alan Wake second hand than red dead new.

    Without that big profit margin on trade ins they will have to make it on new games. So all this will do is push up the price of new games reduce the price they will give you for second hand games and add an extra cost to buying second hand games.

    But the publishers just say its hurting developers and everyone rolls over and has their belly tickled.

    That's just a what if scenario. I doubt that will happen because if the prices in the stores go back up people will just go back to buying their games cheaper online.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 52,407 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    5 euros is robbery to play on a PvP service without dedicated servers. You can get the multiplayer with dedicated servers on the PC for free. I'd need a better reason to fork over 5 euro.


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 9,654 Mod ✭✭✭✭mayordenis


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    5 euros is robbery to play on a PvP service without dedicated servers. You can get the multiplayer with dedicated servers on the PC for free. I'd need a better reason to fork over 5 euro.

    Look at it this way - you're paying 5 euro to the developer of the game for...wait for it...wait for it...developing the game.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 5,175 Mod ✭✭✭✭Mr Moon


    Why don't the developers make their games available to download through live? If you're buying a new game, you're more than likely going to upload it to your hard drive!

    Doing what they're doing will cripple the trade in of games anyway!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭Slugs


    mayordenis wrote: »
    Look at it this way - you're paying 5 euro to the developer of the game for...wait for it...wait for it...developing the game.
    Isn't that already paid for when we... wait for it, wait for it... Paid for the game initially?

    :O THE HORROR! OH THE HUMANITY! SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILLUN!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    God Retr0, you clearly have no idea how the video games industry works!


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 5,175 Mod ✭✭✭✭Mr Moon


    I can't understand how greedy they are, selling us a game, then charging us extra to buy a new map or an add on to a game most of us forked out 60ish bills for!! Maybe they should drop the DLC cost if they're going to be charging to play online!


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 9,654 Mod ✭✭✭✭mayordenis


    Slugs wrote: »
    Isn't that already paid for when we... wait for it, wait for it... Paid for the game initially?

    :O THE HORROR! OH THE HUMANITY! SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILLUN!

    Yes absolutely if you buy the game new you are paying the developers.
    That's not in question by anyone - but if you buy it second hand the developers get nothing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,509 ✭✭✭NotorietyH


    Slugs wrote: »
    Isn't that already paid for when we... wait for it, wait for it... Paid for the game initially?

    :O THE HORROR! OH THE HUMANITY! SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILLUN!

    Yeah and if you pay for the game new (the only type of sale that matters to developers) you get the multiplayer without having to pay for the online pass. It's only used games that you'd have to pay for the online pass.

    They're not charging you extra to play online. They're just giving you more of an incentive to buy a copy new, which I see nothing wrong with.


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 9,654 Mod ✭✭✭✭mayordenis


    Mr Moon wrote: »
    I can't understand how greedy they are, selling us a game, then charging us extra to buy a new map or an add on to a game most of us forked out 60ish bills for!! Maybe they should drop the DLC cost if they're going to be charging to play online!

    did you actually read the thread?
    It's not actually about paying to play online - It's about getting access to the online portion of the game with a code that comes with the game when purchased new.
    So it's only if people buy 2nd hand and don't get the code that they must pay.

    What it would murder is rental copies though - all rentals will be single player only - unless you pay a fiver which would be probably very close to what you paid for the rent - esentially doubling the price.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 5,175 Mod ✭✭✭✭Mr Moon


    mayordenis wrote: »
    did you actually read the thread?
    It's not actually about paying to play online - It's about getting access to the online portion of the game with a code that comes with the game when purchased new.
    So it's only if people buy 2nd hand and don't get the code that they must pay.

    What it would murder is rental copies though - all rentals will be single player only - unless you pay a fiver which would be probably very close to what you paid for the rent - esentially doubling the price.

    Yeah I did, I just kinda went off on my own thoughts writing that lol (I just have a problem with paying for DLC after forking out for the game)

    So the trade in value of your purchase is going to go down now making your purchase worth less and trading in to buy a new game will cost you more, either way whatever they do it's still going to cost us more!


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 9,654 Mod ✭✭✭✭mayordenis


    Mr Moon wrote: »
    Yeah I did, I just kinda went off on my own thoughts writing that lol (I just have a problem with paying for DLC after forking out for the game)

    So the trade in value of your purchase is going to go down now making your purchase worth less and trading in to buy a new game will cost you more, either way whatever they do it's still going to cost us more!

    Fair enough - DLC is definately getting worryingly popular with developers.

    But I avoid the used market all together - so it won't effect me.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 5,175 Mod ✭✭✭✭Mr Moon


    mayordenis wrote: »
    Fair enough - DLC is definately getting worryingly popular with developers.

    But I avoid the used market all together - so it won't effect me.

    Do you trade in games, sell them on adverts, even swap them with mates or share with a sibling?


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 9,654 Mod ✭✭✭✭mayordenis


    Mr Moon wrote: »
    Do you trade in games, sell them on adverts, even swap them with mates or share with a sibling?

    No.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭Slugs


    Hold up a second...

    *click*

    My brain has just realised something, if they implement this you won't be able to do the following:-

    1) If there're more than two consoles in a house, you'll have to pay for 2 consoles to have multiplayer features (fail)
    2) If you bring your game to a friends house, you'll either have to bring your console, hope your friend had the copy of the game on their console to have multiplayer features
    3) If your console is sent off for repairs and is replaced, you'll have to pay AGAIN for multiplayer features
    4) And for all the people who thought "Oh well, they'll just tie the code to your account, so it'll be your account that has permission to play online" then people with multiple accounts on their console, (I have 7, 3 silver 4 gold) will have to pay AGAIN for multiplayer features.

    Now to answer a few responses while I'm here

    1) Dedicated servers will be unreliable, particularly when it comes to EA, they're notorious for closing down servers.
    2) Developers make their money back through DLC, or should in any case. I can see your point guys, but at the end of the day, the only person who is really suffering here is the publisher, the developers get their sum, it's the publishers who make the most from the game.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,955 ✭✭✭rizzla


    Just in response to point 3 Slugs. If it's standard DLC you'll be able to transfer the licence to the new console. And any account on the console that downloaded the online ability should in theory be able to play online.

    EA have the whole EA Nation thing so that will be tied to the gamertag that entered the code. Others are starting to use similar things to EA's now aswell. Ubisoft and their Uplay thing comes to mind.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Not being a big multiplayer fan myself it doesn't really affect me too much, especially as I rarely buy second-hand either, but I think this is blatant greed and nothing more.

    For how long now have there been second-hand bookshops or retailers selling second-hand CDs or DVDs? It has been common practice in goods such as these for as long as they have been on sale. What exactly is so special about the games industry that they should now be treated differently?

    At the end of the day they have made their profit on the original sale. Whether the original purchaser keeps their game and plays online or someone else does instead of him/her the cost to the developers is the same in terms of support etc. The only thing they miss out on is the profit from the sale of a new copy. But this is true of all kinds of media, and has been for long enough.

    If I buy a used game from Gamestop why should I have to pay again just to use it online? Will it discourage second-hand sales? Doubtful. Is it costing the developers money? No, it just limits the amount they can make. Therefore it is nothing but pure greed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 261 ✭✭helios12


    molloyjh wrote: »
    At the end of the day they have made their profit on the original sale.


    molloyjh wrote: »
    Therefore it is nothing but pure greed.

    Sums it up quite nicely.

    It has to be pointed out also that the games industry has stayed very healthy throughout all the current economic turmoil. It seems the softly softly approach to shanking consoles gamers has lulled a good amount of you into taking it on the chin and not complaining.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,750 ✭✭✭ghostchant


    I would argue that the developers are not being greedy by expecting you to pay them for the game that they made. What I consider to be greedy is when shops like gamestop place the preowned games right next to the new copy of the game, to entice you onto buying the preowned copy and thus giving them more money, at the expense of the people who actually made the game.

    I'm all for preowned games when we're talking hard-to-find or out-of-print games, but there's no doubt that it's hurting developers in the short-term, and hence us (and possibly even the shops that do it) in the long-term


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,509 ✭✭✭NotorietyH


    helios12 wrote: »
    Sums it up quite nicely.

    It has to be pointed out also that the games industry has stayed very healthy throughout all the current economic turmoil. It seems the softly softly approach to shanking consoles gamers has lulled a good amount of you into taking it on the chin and not complaining.

    Have you not seen the amount of layoffs that EA has done over the last year or so? Or have you not seen how many developers have completely closed down in the last year or so?

    They're losing money on the second sale of the game. Developers are making money out of one sale out of a possible two. How is that so hard to understand? Dead Space is a good example of a game that suffered at the hands of used games. 3 million people played it, only 1.5 million of them bought it new.

    http://www.joystiq.com/2009/07/07/three-million-people-played-dead-space/

    Dead Space was moderately successful at least, but if a game company is relying on every single sale to keep afloat, then it's a different story.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,955 ✭✭✭rizzla


    Comparisons to music and movies isn't really fair. Movies make their money back at the box office and music artists make their money doing tours, there isn't anything like that in the videogame industry, all they have is that initial sale.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement