Go **** yourself THQ

richymcdermott

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/334692/xbox-720-pre-owned-games-block-would-be-fantastic-says-dev/

Soo much bull**** :pac:

cloud493

Well most developers will say that won't they?

CORaven

richymcdermott wrote: »

Soo much bull**** :pac:

Such as?

Overheal

But I like THQ. They gave us Homeworld and the WH40k Games.

Well, they own the studios that gave us these things. Namely Relic. I heart Relic. Relic can't be evil.

the_syco

The loltastic bit is that everyone will just rent the game, complete the game over the weekend, and ive the game back. Why not buy? Because you can't sell it 3 days later when you have the game completed.

In saying that, welcome to the world of PC Gaming, that in the likes of Steam, etc, you can't sell your games 2nd hand. Wonder will the prices drop for console games if they do this?

super_furry

It's already happened on PC, it will eventually happen on console.

DjFlin

I'm okay with that...

Gummy Panda

It will kill shops like GAME and Gamestop

Myrddin

CORaven wrote: »

Such as?

[Insert obligatory politically correct comment here]

Who is anyone to say that something can't be sold as used? Imagine we all had to buy new houses, new cars, new phones, new this, new that. Yeah, we wouldn't find that politically correct at all would we?

But because of the potential revenue it would generate economy, it's deemed ok to validate this crap? Trading in & buying used games is nothing new, I remember being able to do it 15 years ago in Chapters & various swap shops.

Poor Activision for example, only €6 Billion in in two weeks. God help them. I'm sure there'll be plenty here that see this possible new direction as the savior of the gaming industry, I know I don't. It's a blatant money making exercise, cashing in on the politically correct brigades defense of it.

What happens if your disc gets scratched? Buy another full priced copy for something you've already bought the rights to use? Remember, you've paid for the game...not the disc.

super_furry

Gummy Panda wrote: »

It will kill shops like GAME and Gamestop

They'll just have to revert to being game shops rather than the glorified pawn shops they've become. For two weeks I've been trying to buy Saints Row the Third and Mortal Kombat on the Xbox and in trying two GAME shops and two Gamestops over the course of two weekends, I haven't been able to buy either of them new.

the_syco

I wonder how this will effect console piracy, in that people will always have to pay full price for a game?

Outkast_IRE

I have no problem with this, as long as it results with more money to the devolpers and not the big publishers.

Also Cut all this Downloadable crap and give it for free to people who genuinely buy the game , that would be worth it imo.

Myrddin

the_syco wrote: »

I wonder how this will effect console piracy, in that people will always have to pay full price for a game?

After having modded consoles for years, & looking at the way trends run...all this will do will make some 3rd party a lot of money. It'll be first to find a way around it wins. And again we'll have the unfortunate situation where DRM hurts the legit users most, while pirates have it easier.

gizmo

Why should THQ go **** themselves? This was the opinion of one developer, someone whose job relies on people buying games new so that the creators of the game make money, not the retailer, and they can stay in business.

EnterNow wrote: »

But because of the potential revenue it would generate economy, it's deemed ok to validate this crap? Trading in & buying used games is nothing new, I remember being able to do it 15 years ago in Chapters & various swap shops.

The problem, as has been pointed out upteen times, is not the simple act of trading in games, it's that retailers have jumped on it and taken it to obscene levels. There's a bunch of games in my collection that I simply wouldn't own due to missing the boat when they were released were it not for being able to get them from eBay or Adverts and it would be an awful shame if that were to end. Then again, if trends were to continue and more studios close and more original projects canned in order to make way for "safer" bets by publishers then that would be worse imo.

EnterNow wrote: »

Poor Activision for example, only €6 Billion in in two weeks. God help them. I'm sure there'll be plenty here that see this possible new direction as the savior of the gaming industry, I know I don't. It's a blatant money making exercise, cashing in on the politically correct brigades defense of it.

Why fall back on the biggest publisher in the world to make your point? Why not focus on the smaller developers and publishers who can't handle a massive chunk being taken out of their revenue by the burgeoning second hand market?

ShadowHearth

Muppet to say the least. Soon we won't own any games at all. We will just rent games for 60eu. There won't be any collections anymore, no more rare games on eBay as all games will be just locked for 1 console and make them useless.
So your Xbox5million will have blue square of death and all your games will be locked to that Xbox. So you won't be able just take on other Xbox to play. It will take days to go with customer support to reload your games for new replace my console.

Other option they got: account lock. You now lock your online passes to your account. So maybe it will be full lock on to account same as pc versions? Steam/origin etc?


Dunno. More and more I am put away from consoles as they are losing their qualities that makes them attractive.
I love now and then grab my mortal combat or forza 4 and take it to my buddies place to have an quiet evening with beer and button bashing fun. With new xblender I won't be able to do it. My buddy will have to buy his own copies or I would have to bring my own xblender.

jesus_thats_gre

I haven't thought about the finer details too much but on the surface of it, I am happy enough with this.

The trade in prices, and the subsequent markup when selling on, offered by the likes of Game are an absolute disgrace.

I do wonder what the overall implications of this will be for the industry. Will it drive the shelf price of new games down? Will the likes of Game etc be able to survive if this happens? Digital distribution will probably play a bigger part in things. Will PC gaming benefit from this - can't exactly trade in PC games.

Some interesting times ahead.

jesus_thats_gre

ShadowHearth wrote: »

There won't be any collections anymore, no more rare games on eBay as all games will be just locked for 1 console and make them useless..

Would this really be the end of the world? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of retro collections myself but.....

super_furry

But this is already how the PC market works. You buy a game online or off and you get a code that's unique to you and you alone. You're tied to that game, usually through Steam, and you can't ever sell it on or trade it in.

Gummy Panda

super_furry wrote: »

They'll just have to revert to being game shops rather than the glorified pawn shops they've become. For two weeks I've been trying to buy Saints Row the Third and Mortal Kombat on the Xbox and in trying two GAME shops and two Gamestops over the course of two weekends, I haven't been able to buy either of them new.

Thats the thing, i don't think they can survive under that model.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Muppet to say the least. Soon we won't own any games at all. We will just rent games for 60eu.

My prediction for the future is that games will become subscription or micro transaction based. I don't know if that's possible with a console market but I can see it going that way with pc market.

Myrddin

gizmo wrote: »

Then again, if trends were to continue and more studios close and more original projects canned in order to make way for "safer" bets by publishers then that would be worse imo.

Oh I'm very much all for supporting the smaller, innovative companies. You think Microsoft are doing this to help them though? Really?

gizmo wrote:

Why fall back on the biggest publisher in the world to make your point? Why not focus on the smaller developers and publishers who can't handle a massive chunk being taken out of their revenue by the burgeoning second hand market?

Because I can. You think the same people are gonna pay €55 euro, for a game they buy used for €20? I know I wouldn't. If I buy used games, I do so because they're more affordable. I'm in the same recession that the dev houses are. I know its not as simple as lowering prices to encourage sales, but ruling out the 2nd hand market is a step too far.

Nollog

CORaven wrote: »

Such as?

Unrealistic claim that "...consumers would be up in arms about it at first... they will grow to understand why and that it won't kill them." is bullpoopie.
It's all well and good for them, but pre-owned games is a business now because they've priced their new games out of most people's market.

Good luck breaking a million when nobody can afford your games.
Also, very insensitive comment from THQ, but that's what they do.

ShadowHearth

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Would this really be the end of the world? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of retro collections myself but.....

I am a very big pc gamer with a little bit of play time on consoles. So I know what they are doing with this, as I love love love steam and other retailers who offer downloadable version of games. The biggest strength of that - you can get great sales, because these platforms are very competitive.
Microsoft will have monopoly on this and they I won't let you have same account as steam, where you can manage all your games on one platform and redownloaded them when you want.
I don't buy used games anymore. And even if I bought them, they would be something very old and very cheap. If there were brand new version for 10eu more then used one ( no online pass in mind ) I would still go for brand new one. You still get better deals on new games online then any pre owned ones.

It's not the end of the world, but I am sick of simple way of: insert game and play, to be so complicated these days and in near future to be even more complicated.


Unfor

johnny_ultimate

Frankly, the second-hand market a huge reason why we don't see tightly focused, short but sweet single-player games any more. It's also why developers are wasting their time and resources developing multiplayer modes for games that don't need them. It's arguably also a significant factor in the lack of original, offbeat games receiving mainstream releases. It's part of the reason why Psychonauts or Beyond Good & Evil were commercial flops (also because most gamers are terrified of anything new or unique, but that's another argument).

It's all well and good blaming the corporations, and many of them are beyond defending in many aspects. But the second hand industry does significant harm to both experimentation and originality in gaming, IMO, as well as taking huge amounts of revenue away from the artists who deserve it, often for the sake of five euro or less.

That said, removing second-hand games entirely would result in many games being 'lost' to the ages. Imagine it was impossible or even illegal to sell on a Megadrive game! Even Steam won't last forever. Physical releases are probably still the safest, most reliable way to assume your game will still be playable in twenty years. Second hand market also ensures the availability or rarities and games that received smaller releases.

It's a complex argument, really, and I don't think either side hopping on a high horse is the most logical way to approach the argument.

Krusader

Sony will be rubbing their hands with glee, who says they'll implement this sort of shíte

Varik

Crosáidí wrote: »

Sony will be rubbing their hands with glee, who says they'll implement this sort of shíte

Of course they will and Nintendo too, they'll both wait till MS has taken the flak for it and then implement it.

gizmo

EnterNow wrote: »

Oh I'm very much all for supporting the smaller, innovative companies. You think Microsoft are doing this to help them though? Really?

MS will be doing this not only because of the pressure from third party publishers but also the fact that they themselves are publishers.

EnterNow wrote: »

Because I can. You think the same people are gonna pay €55 euro, for a game they buy used for €20? I know I wouldn't. If I buy used games, I do so because they're more affordable. I'm in the same recession that the dev houses are. I know its not as simple as lowering prices to encourage sales, but ruling out the 2nd hand market is a step too far.

Of course you can, it just weakens your point when you do it.

The issue here isn't the second hand games that are priced around the €20 when the new price is €55 (despite the fact I've hardly ever seen that happen), it's the games priced like this, where there is little difference between new and second hand and the retailers are filling their shelves with second hand copies rather than new ones in order to reap the potential profits.

/\/ollog wrote: »

Unrealistic claim that "...consumers would be up in arms about it at first... they will grow to understand why and that it won't kill them." is bullpoopie.
It's all well and good for them, but pre-owned games is a business now because they've priced their new games out of most people's market.

Good luck breaking a million when nobody can afford your games.
Also, very insensitive comment from THQ, but that's what they do.

The prices of games hasn't changed since the days of the SNES, if anything they've become cheaper if you take inflation into account. Compare that with the astronomical rise in development costs and your argument is simply invalid.

And as I said above, "THQ" didn't make this comment, one developer did which is anything but insensitive.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Microsoft will have monopoly on this and they I won't let you have same account as steam, where you can manage all your games on one platform and redownloaded them when you want.

Are you saying you don't think MS will let you redownload your games whenever you want? Because they are already do that with the existing Live service.

ShadowHearth

gizmo wrote: »

MS will be doing this not only because of the pressure from third party publishers but also the fact that they themselves are publishers.


Of course you can, it just weakens your point when you do it.

The issue here isn't the second hand games that are priced around the €20 when the new price is €55 (despite the fact I've hardly ever seen that happen), it's the games priced like this, where there is little difference between new and second hand and the retailers are filling their shelves with second hand copies rather than new ones in order to reap the potential profits.


The prices of games hasn't changed since the days of the SNES, if anything they've become cheaper if you take inflation into account. Compare that with the astronomical rise in development costs and your argument is simply invalid.

And as I said above, "THQ" didn't make this comment, one developer did which is anything but insensitive.


Are you saying you don't think MS will let you redownload your games whenever you want? Because they are already do that with the existing Live service.

They let you redownload the online stuff, but I am prety sure you can't redownload dark souls if you got only the disc etc. you can download mw3 too if you got disc copy. With steam I can buy a physical disc and choose between online download or install from disc.

So if we will be able to have steam on xblender2000 with just MS badge on it, then why not! Though ms pricing was allways idiotic, even compared to steam.

Myrddin

gizmo wrote: »

MS will be doing this not only because of the pressure from third party publishers but also the fact that they themselves are publishers.

Interesting how much pressure, small, independant game companies can put on MS don't you think? This is all about $$$ for the big boys.

gizmo wrote:

Of course you can, it just weakens your point when you do it.

I'm not saying all games make $6 Billion in two weeks, obviously.

gizmo wrote:

The issue here isn't the second hand games that are priced around the €20 when the new price is €55 (despite the fact I've hardly ever seen that happen), it's the games priced like this, where there is little difference between new and second hand and the retailers are filling their shelves with second hand copies rather than new ones in order to reap the potential profits.

I got Black Ops for the 360 for €12 in Game used. It was roughly around €40 for the new copy. I take your point about when the used games are €5 off their new counterparts, that is a definite problem. But the big problem is there's no way to distinguish against both exampleswhen it comes to DRM. It's new or nothing, & that, I do not agree with


The prices of games hasn't changed since the days of the SNES, if anything they've become cheaper if you take inflation into account. Compare that with the astronomical rise in development costs and your argument is simply invalid.

And as I said above, "THQ" didn't make this comment, one developer did which is anything but insensitive.


Are you saying you don't think MS will let you redownload your games whenever you want? Because they are already do that with the existing Live service.[/QUOTE]

gizmo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

They let you redownload the online stuff, but I am prety sure you can't redownload dark souls if you got only the disc etc. you can download mw3 too if you got disc copy. With steam I can buy a physical disc and choose between online download or install from disc.

So if we will be able to have steam on xblender2000 with just MS badge on it, then why not! Though ms pricing was allways idiotic, even compared to steam.

Ah yes, that kind of re-downloading. Personally I've always found that incredibly generous on Steam's behalf and although it's something I'd miss with other downloadable services, I don't think it's fair to criticise them for not having it.

As for their prices, totally agree on the insane front however from bits I've read elsewhere, it seems that external publishers and retailers are exerting unknown pressure in order to keep these as high as possible.

EnterNow wrote: »

Interesting how much pressure, small, independant game companies can put on MS don't you think? This is all about $$$ for the big boys.

The most pressure will be coming from the bigger companies of course, that doesn't mean that it's the smaller ones who are still, relatively speaking, suffering from it the most.

EnterNow wrote: »

I got Black Ops for the 360 for €12 in Game used. It was roughly around €40 for the new copy. I take your point about when the used games are €5 off their new counterparts, that is a definite problem. But the big problem is there's no way to distinguish against both exampleswhen it comes to DRM. It's new or nothing, & that, I do not agree with

Not to be picking on your examples but Activision games really aren't the best examples in this case. Wolverine and Prototype, for instance, stayed at an incredibly high price until over a year after release yet their second hand sales were far closer to the norm for a game of their age. I really don't think that's to do with the retailer so I'd imagine it's occurring higher up the chain at a distributor level.

johnny_ultimate

gizmo wrote: »

The prices of games hasn't changed since the days of the SNES, if anything they've become cheaper if you take inflation into account. Compare that with the astronomical rise in development costs and your argument is simply invalid.

Prices have indeed remained steady over the years. New generations tend to start expensive, only to radically decrease in price as the 'novelty' of a new console wears off. It's why it's foolish to pay 55+ euro for a new game these days when next store will have it for a fiver-tenner cheaper. And that's the high street. Online is significantly cheaper again (unless you're shopping on playdotcom )!

Two significant things have changed since the SNES era, neither mutually exclusive:

1. The internet has grown bigger, and the gamers grown louder. There is now a medium for people to complain about "high" prices, whereas they always existed. Indeed, prestige games often cost close to three figure amounts.

2. We as a gaming community are constantly demanding more content, on a bigger scale, on better technology, for less money. This is in many ways completely unfeasible commercially. Gaming - bar the indie scene, and even then everyone needs to eat - is an industry, it's not a charity.

If you think we have it bad, go to Japan. Games tend to RRP for 7000-8000 yen, which is in and around 70-80 euro. This is accepted as standard. Sales are rarer and the second-hand industry limited.

I should stress that when we're talking about 'used' games the conversation needs to be restricted to 'new' titles (i.e. twelve months old or less) - the price of pre-owned games older than that, or indeed from older console generations, are largely irrelevant to the argument IMO (except PC, where there is a large 'sale' and retro industry). I also forsee significant issues with an entirely digital future, so as not to ignore those concerns.

Myrddin

gizmo wrote: »

Not to be picking on your examples but Activision games really aren't the best examples in this case. Wolverine and Prototype, for instance, stayed at an incredibly high price until over a year after release yet their second hand sales were far closer to the norm for a game of their age. I really don't think that's to do with the retailer so I'd imagine it's occurring higher up the chain at a distributor level.

Sorry if my example doesn't fit with your point, but nevertheless, I saved well over half the price of the game by buying it used.

I do take your point though, that its different to what we both agree on, which is that its wrong when used games are €5/€10 off a new copy. Thats entirely different.

Retr0gamer

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

If you think we have it bad, go to Japan. Games tend to RRP for 7000-8000 yen, which is in and around 70-80 euro. This is accepted as standard. Sales are rarer and the second-hand industry limited.

I'm not altogether sure but I think selling second hand games is illegal in Japan and with retro shops it's more 'look the other way' or les there's a clause covering it.

johnny_ultimate

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'm not altogether sure but I think selling second hand games is illegal in Japan and with retro shops it's more 'look the other way' or les there's a clause covering it.

I do have a few games I bought second hand in stores over there, and fairly big chains as opposed to small retailers. So not sure if it is illegal. But it, either way, is far less common than it is over these parts.

Gummy Panda

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'm not altogether sure but I think selling second hand games is illegal in Japan and with retro shops it's more 'look the other way' or les there's a clause covering it.

When i use to read NeoGaf, the lads who lived in Japan spoke of gamers trying to complete the game in a week so they can trade back in and get store card points for their next title. This was with the big chains so I don't think its illegal unless it changed within the last two years.

ghostchant

Saw 2nd hand games in virtually every shop (both small and large) I went to in Tokyo, they were generally in such good condition it was hard to tell the difference though.

I'm curious to see what Nintendo/Sony will do if MS do go in this direction. Would certainly be a good selling point for their respective consoles if 2nd hand purchases were possible. And if that were the case I wonder if new Xbox titles would eventually be comparatively cheaper than their Nintendo/Sony counterparts, so as to compete with their 2nd hand markets.

Helix

its not like thq will survive long enough to see the 720 anyway


but he's right

Varik

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I do have a few games I bought second hand in stores over there, and fairly big chains as opposed to small retailers. So not sure if it is illegal. But it, either way, is far less common than it is over these parts.

Gummy Panda wrote: »

When i use to read NeoGaf, the lads who lived in Japan spoke of gamers trying to complete the game in a week so they can trade back in and get store card points for their next title. This was with the big chains so I don't think its illegal unless it changed within the last two years.

It's renting games/consoles that's illegal, but oddly you can rent music on CDs.

There were shops who i think got in trouble or selling consoles with a guarantee to take them back in a week minus a small fee from your refund.

johnny_ultimate

You've got to remember we're talking about a country where showing a penis is illegal, but having a female character getting sexually abused by a tentacle is A-OK.

Their legal system is a wee bit eccentric. And I imagine entirely like Phoenix Wright in action.

deathrider

I grow tired of this used games vs new games argument that's been springing up everywhere over the last few years, and even more so over the last few months. If the industry is indeed treathened by used games, then there's surely a good solid solution to it that won't burn gamers along the way. I don't believe that the likes of this, or that stunt they pulled with Res E: Mercs on 3DS is the way to go though. If they keep running down this road, then will end up with a built in incinerator in our consoles that will instantly torch our disks as soon as we complete them, so that the game can't be used again or resold.

Nollog

gizmo wrote: »

The prices of games hasn't changed since the days of the SNES, if anything they've become cheaper if you take inflation into account. Compare that with the astronomical rise in development costs and your argument is simply invalid.

And as I said above, "THQ" didn't make this comment, one developer did which is anything but insensitive.

Cost of ram (for cartridge) in 1980 was astronomical, cost of a cd now is 0.00000000000001 cent.
Are they passing on that saving?
Nope.

-Just one example.

super_furry

/\/ollog wrote: »

Cost of ram (for cartridge) in 1980 was astronomical, cost of a cd now is 0.00000000000001 cent.
Are they passing on that saving?
Nope.

-Just one example.

OK then, why haven't game prices increased since the Playstation was launched in 1995? A game then cost £40, a game now costs €50 - roughly the same.

However in that time the price of a pint has risen from €2.50 to €5 and similar inflation has taken place elsewhere.

stevenmu

F*ck this, if I buy a physical disc I should have the right to sell it on. That's the way it has always been, that's the way it is for music and for movies, and it has worked pretty well so far.

This isn't about impoverished developers on the bread line struggling to eek a living out of their art, it's about big companies looking at other companies making money and thinking "hmm, that money looks nice, but it'd look better in my pocket".

johnny_ultimate

I'd rather some portion of my money goes to the people who made the game, though, and the company who published it. I'd much rather Sega, Platinum and Gamestop get a piece of the pie than just Gamestop. The developer deserves their share from every sale. Everyone else is of secondary concern. What did Gamestop do to deserve a share other than put it on a shelf?

This only relates to relatively new games, where every sale genuinely matters and can make the difference to a vibrant gaming world. A preowned community is only to be encouraged when the commercial gain for publisher / developer is neligible.

It's frighteningly easy to boil this down to them vs us. And it's great to feel like the little guy from time to time. But it really, really isn't that simple.

Vadakin

OK then. Should car companies get a cut of the sale if someone sells their car second hand? If a guy builds a house and then sells it, should the new owner give the original owner a percentage if he decides to sell it on himself? Or should people have to hold on to their cars and houses forever, even if they buy new ones because selling them second hand would cost contractors and car manufacturers? See when you make it about something else, it sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

Games are no different. The argument that Gamestop screws developers over by buying used games on the cheap and selling them for almost as much as a new release holds no water whatsoever. The developer has already made their money on that particular disc. Gamestop aren't screwing the developers. They're screwing the customers with their high prices for used games but that's a different argument entirely.

FIAT get their money from the FIAT Punto bought new. Not on the one bought second hand. If you change the rules for games, surely you have to change the rules for everything else. Do FIAT and Ford and BMW complain that they are losing money for every car used car sold? No. In fact many car companies have taken advantage of the used car market by going into business with second hand dealerships. If publishers want to get money from used games, instead of complaining about lost revenues, they should be partnering with Gamestop or Game or doing something themselves if the retail stores won't participate. Maybe they should offer trade in deals. Trade in Modern Warfare 3 at Activision and get credit towards Black Ops 2 (you know it's coming). If someone wants to pick up a cheap copy of MW3 they can go to the Activision site and pick up a used copy.

If Activision doesn't want to do that, then...tough. The housing market is based on a system of buy low, sell high. If I buy a house for €500,000 and sell it for €1,000,000, do I give the guy I bought the house from initially a share of the profit? No. Of course not.

Our economic system, as messed up as it is, is still based on the basic principle of trade and barter. We use money these days instead of goats and grain but the concept is pretty much the same. You want something, you buy it and you then have ownership of it. If you wish to sell it on, that's your right.

The NeXtbox having some form of anti-used game software is a bit pointless, even putting aside the arguments. The fact is that only half of 360 owners are actually on XBL in some form. Half. Any system Microsoft would employ would rely on connectivity and I'd wager that a significant portion of used-game buyers are people who don't go online. We could be talking relatively poor households or even kids who simply aren't allowed online and buy games used with their pocket money. Until we have 90% of consoles going online, such measures will be irrelevant and utterly pointless.

We have this idea that software is exempt from free trade rights. It isn't. If someone buys a game used, it means that someone already bought that game new. That particular disc has already been paid for. Publishers have no right to demand more.

Does that mean I'm against game codes? No. If you buy a game used and keep it offline, you won't need a code. If you want to take it online you are availing of a service that needs to be paid for. So I have no issue with game codes for online play although I suppose you could argue that paying for XBL Gold in the 360's case should allow you to access those services regardless. I do take issue with PC games that require online activation or even worse, requires an internet connection to actually play the game, even if it's not an online game.

johnny_ultimate

Vadakin wrote: »

OK then. Should car companies get a cut of the sale if someone sells their car second hand? If a guy builds a house and then sells it, should the new owner give the original owner a percentage if he decides to sell it on himself? Or should people have to hold on to their cars and houses forever, even if they buy new ones because selling them second hand would cost contractors and car manufacturers? See when you make it about something else, it sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

You're presenting a strawman argument. You're not comparing like and like. A builder needs to sell a house once to make money back and the house is priced accordingly. A car manufacturer needs to sell several thousand units to turn a profit and is priced according. A big-budget retail game needs to sell several hundred thousand, or even millions, of copies and is priced accordingly. If you want to compare, compare something closer to games. Is it normal to sell your cinema ticket to the patron going to the next show? Or how about selling your iTunes downloads on? These are absurd examples, but no more absurd than the housing / car examples.

I don't disagree with the rest of your post entirely. I think a second-hand gaming market is important. But it's evolved to increasingly ridiculous levels, where developers and publishers are increasingly unable to break even because it's mere days before games are on the pre-owned shelves. THQ don't care if The Darkness is being sold second-hand. They've made their money. However, they sure as hell care whether The Darkness II is on a second-hand shelf for a couple of euro cheaper pre-owned a day or two after release.

This has resulted in worse games: superfluous features being added to 'fluff' the game in the desperate attempt to keep new copies selling. Companies are going with safe bets and lazy franchise cash-ins as they're the only ones guaranteed to make a return. And we gamers keep demanding better, because we're annoying like that. Studios are closing all the time, often with little fanfare. Some due to quality reasons, granted, but others - whether it's Bizarre Creations or Black Rock Studios - simply because the marketplace has grown so aggressive. Survival of the fittest, I guess, but it's only the Call of Duties, Marios or FIFAs that are guaranteed sales these days.

I'm sure everyone is glad we can buy retro games on Ebay - stuff that we simply cannot get in a shop anymore. But Gamestop et al have created a very unusual and unbalanced industry, and gamers are suffering (both in terms of cost and quality) as well as the 'big boys'. This isn't a post in favour of draconian measures to protect against second hand sales. But it's more than understandable that publishers are trying to protect themselves in a marketplace gone badly awry.

Liam O

I think a deal whereby a game can't be sold second hand until it's a couple of months out wouldn't be a bad idea. It would allow a second hand market and yet give a certain amount of time for the initial sales buzz to get the publisher and developer sales.

ShadowHearth

Wtf is wrong with online pass lads? Let's be honest - it works. Why reinvent bicycle?
Online pass makes second hand games less attractive, so prices on trade ins and second hand sales droping, not growing. That would explain big high street boys having problems too.

CORaven

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

You're presenting a strawman argument. You're not comparing like and like. A builder needs to sell a house once to make money back and the house is priced accordingly. A car manufacturer needs to sell several thousand units to turn a profit and is priced according. A big-budget retail game needs to sell several hundred thousand, or even millions, of copies and is priced accordingly. If you want to compare, compare something closer to games. Is it normal to sell your cinema ticket to the patron going to the next show? Or how about selling your iTunes downloads on? These are absurd examples, but no more absurd than the housing / car examples.

More realistic examples: The console its self, dvds, computers, furniture, TVs.
It is not too uncommon to find these second hand somewhere and supports Vadakin's argument.

ShadowHearth

CORaven wrote: »

More realistic examples: The console its self, dvds, computers, furniture, TVs.
It is not too uncommon to find these second hand somewhere and supports Vadakin's argument.

Agree, vadakin did gave a good argument with this. And I am not even fan of second hand sales. Mobile phones can be added to same category. There are tons of them sold second hand and feck all manufacturers getting for it. In fact you can trade them in back and they go back to manufacturers for parts etc.

Great example of trading in your mw3 for mw3.1 to publisher itself.

Steam has some nice idea behind some of the games: if you had red orchestra 1, you would get 20% discount for red orchestra 2.

stevenmu

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'd rather some portion of my money goes to the people who made the game, though, and the company who published it. I'd much rather Sega, Platinum and Gamestop get a piece of the pie than just Gamestop. The developer deserves their share from every sale. Everyone else is of secondary concern.

You could always just buy new then, or where possible buy direct.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

What did Gamestop do to deserve a share other than put it on a shelf?

The same thing every other shop does to deserve a share of everything they put on their shelves. They provide the shelves, the shop to hold them, and the staff to stock them and sell the games. They take a cut on everything sold, they take a cut on new games too, the same way Tesco take a cut on every can of beans they sell. And they will get their cut, if they don't get to sell 2nd hand games, they'll just stick a much bigger cut on the new games. Will anyone be happier paying €70/80 for a new game?

You're presenting a strawman argument.

I don't think it's fair to just dismiss the car argument as a strawman argument, especially if you're then going to go and compare selling a second hand game to selling a second hand cinema ticket If you want to use a movie analogy, then DVDs are much more accurate, you can buy a DVD new, sell it on to someone else, buy second hand DVDs etc. Just like you have always been able to do with games and just like people have always done with games, and the games industry has still been able to go from being a niche market to being the biggest entertainment industry going.

This has resulted in worse games: superfluous features being added to 'fluff' the game in the desperate attempt to keep new copies selling. Companies are going with safe bets and lazy franchise cash-ins as they're the only ones guaranteed to make a return. And we gamers keep demanding better, because we're annoying like that. Studios are closing all the time, often with little fanfare. Some due to quality reasons, granted, but others - whether it's Bizarre Creations or Black Rock Studios - simply because the marketplace has grown so aggressive. Survival of the fittest, I guess, but it's only the Call of Duties, Marios or FIFAs that are guaranteed sales these days

There's no real evidence to suggest that if second hand sales were cut out, the extra money would go into developing more original and unique games. They already know that CoD, Fifa etc are the big money makers, they could just decide to bring them out every six months instead of once a year.

Grumpypants

Dear Developers,

I will stop trading in my games if you promise to make games that i want to play for longer than one day.

That is all.

Kind Regards,

Grumpy.