Pre-owned games are killing the industry

[a0161613]

Or at least that is what EA, THQ and others would have you believe.

THQ plans to ramp up its output of "premium online play" and downloadable content - in a bid to stamp out the threat from the pre-owned market.

The news came in the firm's Q1 earnings call last night - and arrives just a week after Activision highlighted its intention to devalue second-hand games at retail.

THQ CEO Brian Farrell revealed that THQ had an online content strategy for each major release in future - with which it planned to deliver "robust downloadable content and premium online play".

He added: "We believe this will increase our digital revenue, engage players with our games for a longer period of time and reduce the impact of used games."

It's likely some of this DLC and online content will be 'blocked' to users without a code; free to buyers of new games, but requiring further cost for pre-owned purchasers.

HQ plans to ramp up its output of "premium online play" and downloadable content - in a bid to stamp out the threat from the pre-owned market.

The news came in the firm's Q1 earnings call last night - and arrives just a week after Activision highlighted its intention to devalue second-hand games at retail.

THQ CEO Brian Farrell revealed that THQ had an online content strategy for each major release in future - with which it planned to deliver "robust downloadable content and premium online play".

He added: "We believe this will increase our digital revenue, engage players with our games for a longer period of time and reduce the impact of used games."

It's likely some of this DLC and online content will be 'blocked' to users without a code; free to buyers of new games, but requiring further cost for pre-owned purchasers.

THQ trialled the model with UFC 2010 earlier this year.

EA was the pioneer in the area, implementing its controversial Online Pass across its Sports portfolio - which also requires gamers to enter a one-time code for important in-game content.

And what is their counter-measure? Well you notice the increasing amount of DLC, both free and otherwise? The pre-order bonusses and other advantages that comes with buying a game new is how these big multi-million dollar companies are combatting the pre-owned phenomenon.

To sum it up, I got one of EA's Online Passes with the new Tiger Woods and never used it because I couldn't get online and access that part of the game.

In effect, we will see more of the Modern Warfare 2 scenario. Games will be released unfinished, with bugs and with whole sections unavailable, until they are further released for a premium price a few months later. Those who buy the premium DLC will be out of pocket for something that will be overpriced. Those who buy pre-owned will miss out or have to pay even more for something that should be available to all.

This is an idea I hate. The games industry charges through the nose for full priced games as it stands and releasing games that have chunks unavailable will not prevent it.

Is there a solution? Should DLC be cheaper, or free?

I don't buy many new games but when I do I do not expect to be missing out. But when I buy pre-owned I do not believe I should miss out on content.

What do you think?

 

[Uncle Sam]

I'm a pretty avid follower of videogame news - well, I, uh, post in the off-topic section of a gaming forum - and, until all this shit started hitting the fan, I'd never heard anything of pre-owned games killing the industry. Huge publishers like EA and THQ likely aren't feeling the pinch.

I'm not against DLC. I am, however, against locking content out of the disc and then selling it back to the consumer. And asking people to pay for shit like alternative outfits - even released in different "packs" a la Street Fighter 4 - is ridiculous.

Online communities are often divided by stuff like this as well. Its alright when the process is streamlined - like in Halo - to keep people who do have the DLC and people who don't have the DLC apart. And, indeed, those that do have the DLC can choose to play with those who don't if they wish. I know in some games, however, players will be grouped into games indiscriminately and then those without the correct DLC will be kicked.

As it is, I get a few pre-owned games a year. Most recently, I got Ratchet and Clank: A Crack in Time for £15. £15, motherfucker. If there had been a huge multiplayer section to the game that could only access if I bought it new, would I have? Like fuck I would.

On a related note, non-physical media - distributed through services like Steam - could well be the future of the industry. If it is, publishers and developers pretty much have us bent us over a desk. Let's hope they're gentle, like Valve, and not a bit, well, rapey, like EA.

 

[Freddy4190]

They charge too much for games that have been out for a period of time. Why buy this game new for $40-$60 when I can get it for $20-30 used, practically new. Most people buy them, don't like them, or beat them, then return them. I don't think pre-owned games are killing the industry, I think the game industries are committing suicide by keeping these high prices up forever, and then like Sam said pretty much re-releasing a game, calling it "Brand New" with only the addition of a few outfits, or a map or such. Jesus, the Modern Warfare 2 map packs are $15 and like 3 of the 5 maps are from Call of Duty 4.

 

[JM Punk]

EA, THQ, and others' greed are what is killing the industry.

The problem is that retailers like Gamestop give you nothing on trade-ins, and then turn around and resell the game for $20-30 (and if the game is still relatively new, $50). The game publishers aren't getting their cut of that money, so they're pulling this DLC nonsense for crap that 9 times out of 10 should be in the damn game when you buy it in the first place.

To me, the only thing that should be charged for as DLC are games (such as the arcade games on XBox live and the old NES/SNES games on Wii) and songs for games such as Rock Band (for royalty purposes). Map packs, roster/team updates (I dont know if EA charges for this since I havent bought an EA game in years), and stuff like alternate costumes should be free. Patches to fix bugs (I'm talking to you EA) should be free.

The best thing we can probably do as gamers to combat this is to refuse to buy the DLC, but there are enough hardcore gamers out there where I don't think this would make a difference in the long run. So I will continue to buy pre-owned games, save the 20-30 bucks, and play it for a couple of hours a week.

 

[The Holy One]

EA, THQ, and whatever other game company that follows with this plan have totally become greedy. The reason why there's such a pre-owned craze now is due to unrealistic high prices of the games now. There was once when games came out to $30 to $40 now it's $55 to $65 and none of them offer any extra accessories such as Guitar Hero, Rock Band, and Arkham Asylum. Then on top of that, you still have to pay for the DLC for the full experience of the game which is the reason why the pre-owned trend exist b/c people don't want to pay excessive amount of money for an incomplete game. EA and THQ are doing nothing but turning away fans from their games with this move.

 

[a0161613]

This is one reason why franchises are bad for the business. Companies like EA have gotten used to making games like Madden & FIFA with the bare minimum of updates, whilst charging the premium for the privelege of an update every twelve months, with a new gimmick attached.

Not to mention, it breeds a blatant lack of originality. It started with FIFA and has gone to Guitar Hero etc.

DLC is now getting to the point where developers are using it as an excuse to keep the income flowing once a games release has blown over. It's a sad indictment of the companies involved and what the industry has evolved into.

Games like FIFA are the "evil" in this or at least the companies behind them are. However I think Borderlands & GTA are prime examples of how it should be done. Whole new episodes or in the case of GTA, entire new story arcs in the same game world, are exactly what should be aimed for. FIFA did something similar but I thought the Ultimate Team thing blew chunks, even if it was a free gimmick.

 

[Mr. Truth]

I worked at a Gamestop for around 2 years. So I really know just how much used games hurts publishers. Unless a title was within the first two or three weeks of a release, most people buy the used copy because it ends up costing them $5-$15 less. However, I do agree that with some older titles used is the only way to go. When the new game retails for $50 and the used goes for $20, it's almost silly to buy new. A

As for how to solve the problem, I agree with EA's solution of including content only with new copies of the game. It doesn't necessarily hurt people who buy used copies of the game, since they can always fork over the extra $10 to EA to get that content, and it keeps the status quo on new copies of the game. I am adamantly against companies that put out incomplete buggy games ala Modern Warfare 2 in which you have to shell out $30 (bringing to total to $90 if you bought a new copy of the game) just in order to play online with everyone properly.

 

[shattered dreams]

I agree it is mostly complaining about greed instead of doing the right thing and making quality games that can retain their new price for a longer time period. The big issue is why should I pay top dollar for this game now when the price is going to be so much cheaper later? The obvious answer is I should not. Now if they make a quality game with lasting creative gameplay then no one is going to trade it in and the demand will remain. However, they crank out quantity not quality. In fact, like someone mentioned sometimes they just sell the brand each year new with token improvements. You want me to buy a new madden every year when you do not even improve the game much but every three years and I am the one ruining the industry? That is hilarious.

So you are going to strike back and me by making your product even worse than it already was by holding out on me with content and trying to overcharge me for it? This sounds like them shooting themselves in the foot because if that is the case why not just skip the game altogether. What they fail to realize is that mistreating people on the major titles is more likely to drive them to the secondary market. Once people realize they can have 90 perecent of the fun for less than half the price, why would they go back? I have a hard time believing they get enough DLC buys from the hardcore gamers to make up for the lost revenue from casual gamers that are turned off to the whole thing.

 

[Lee]

Meh I've commented on this before, but alas I'll do it again.

Why shouldn't the VG industry make more money? It's going to beenfit us all in the long run, a brand new game for £40 or preowned plus the online play for £25 in total? Yes please.

The main thing ruining the industry is lazy game makers who put out tons of shit (1982 crash anyone?) as everyone has previously mentioned. Oh that and of course illegal downloading. Most people have their consoles modded now so why si the industry going after people who pay for their games rather than going for those who don't?!

 

[JM Punk]

Meh I've commented on this before, but alas I'll do it again.

Why shouldn't the VG industry make more money? It's going to beenfit us all in the long run, a brand new game for £40 or preowned plus the online play for £25 in total? Yes please.
The main thing ruining the industry is lazy game makers who put out tons of shit (1982 crash anyone?) as everyone has previously mentioned. Oh that and of course illegal downloading. Most people have their consoles modded now so why si the industry going after people who pay for their games rather than going for those who don't?!

How exactly does it benefit us if they make a game that is 90% complete, and then turn around 2 months later and offer additional downloadable maps for $10 bucks. Maybe it benefits the hardcore games that has to get 100% completion on everything in a particular games, but I dont see how it benefits anybody else.

I'm not going to knock the companies for trying to make more money. If they find people stupid enough to buy alternate costumes, more power to them. But I would feel ripped off if I spent $65 bucks on a game (including tax), only to not be able to access a part of it because it was DLC only. Either include it in the damn game in the first place, lower the price of the game to a more reasonable $50 bucks (I miss when PS2 games cost that much new), or release a 'Special Edition' that costs more that has all this crap and give me the option to decide if I want it or not when I go to Gamestop in the first place.

 

[kissfan85]

Most games just aren't worth buying new anymore...
I'm not buying a 60.00 game that only has a five hour campaign

We buy four new games a year and the rest will be pre owned, you just have to prioritize which games you wanna support buying brand new and which games take a back burner

 

[Razor]

Maybe I'm just reading it wrong. But I saw this quote TWICE in the OP.

It's likely some of this DLC and online content will be 'blocked' to users without a code; free to buyers of new games, but requiring further cost for pre-owned purchasers.

So if you buy the game new, you get the content for the price of the game. If you buy it used, you have to pay to get the content the new game would have gotten you.

What's the problem?

The used gaming industry has always been a huge loophole in the profit schemes of the video game industry. Once they get that initial buy, they're essentially out of luck. I can buy the game for 60 dollars, sell it back for 30, then the game can find new owners over the course of years that would probably add up to over 100-200 dollars in repurchase sales. It's how stores like GameStop and GameXchange make their money. It's a simple business plan, honestly. THQ are completely in their right here.

So the game industry is making their stab at the proverbial money tree. They're not doing anything illegal. They're not doing anything overtly immoral. They're merely making people who bought the game for 20 bucks, as opposed to the new 60 dollar game, pay 5 extra dollars to get the content everyone else has. I see nothing here that actually says they're going to lock out the purchasers of new games from content or release half broken games because they want to make another 100 dollars in DLC and bug fixes.

 

[Wade's Public Transit Bomb]

Well, I don't get DLC (maybe because I am not an online player and avid Nintendo fan/too lazy to look into online play), but I do purchase used games consistently:

- It seems like the only games I can find for genres I like (RPG, Simulation, Family) are used. I am a huge fan of Atlus games and Nippon games, but I can't find them brand new. It could be that the games are old, but 2008 was only 2 years ago people..

- Call me cheap if you must, but I will take paying anywhere from 10%-50% off the new price for a used game. Come on. You ain't gotta be the head cashier of Walmart to understand why.

- The places I buy my games are local stores. They may overcharge at times, but I am a sucker for supporting local merchants.

- If I look up info on a game online and I am not 100% sold on it, I am more likely to give it a chance if it is around 10-20 bucks. I would feel a lot less dumb going "Eh. It was only 15 bucks" as opposed to "I spent my money on this game? What the hell was I thinking?"

 

[kissfan85]

If they want people to think it's worth paying 60.00 they should put more emphasis on campaign play...
Now my husband plays on line most people do now, but we are so Dependant on playing with other people to have fun...why?

For almost three decades we enjoyed playing games not online...because the games were great and gave us hours of game play

Today....the part of the game you play your self is sometimes weak and only gives us a couple hours of real compelling game play...
I think developers are just plain lazy nowadays...

'oh there just wanna go on with there friends and shoot each other for hours...why should we work on the campaign at all'
Ummmm because it's nice to play by your self too you know, I'm not a people person and I don't want to play on line with a bunch of people I don't freaking know.
I want to enjoy a game by my self with a two liter of coke and bag of chips and enjoy some me time

 

[enterkey]

Honestly I don't think that pre-owned games are hurting anything at all, most of the people I know don't even bother trying to buy used games as most of the time they are either scratched or defective and its not worth another trip to the store to pick up a different copy. While these games make stores like gamestop a lot of money I don't believe that they take much money away from the game companies as there are still major retail stores such as Walmart, Target, Best Buy, etc that sell a metric shit ton of new games as well as the new games that are sold at GS. Also these games have to be bought once in order to be sold back to gamestop so that in itself seems to be a moot point as the video game companies still get the money from the initial buy.

 

[Deexter Jorgan]

It doesn't matter if it benefits us or not, the fact that those who buy preowned get ripped off is ridiculous.

The game's industry is making a killing over downloadable content, in the next few years everything will be available online, all we will need is a console that has a built in hard drive.

The issue with this is the same as uploading music, everyone will be pirating games and not bother purchasing them from the manufacturer.

I do agree with Lee though, why not target the hardcore gamers, those who will pay through the nose for fourty different copies of the same game.

And for those who don't we'll you can either buy the downloadable content, or purchase the game for full price getting the content for free,it's just a games companies way of making more money due to the fact that nearly a third went bust due to the recession and constant pirating.

The only thing we all can do now is just either give in or find it for free elsewhere risking expulsion from forums such as PSN.

Do I think it's right...No, but my choice won't matter, all that matters is the bottom line and as long as we keep purchasing, companies will keep raising prices.

 

[The Deadly Viper]

What are you on about video games that are pre-owned hurting the industry. This has to be the biggest load of idiocy I have heard (no offense). Not a lot of people buy them due to the fact that they have a reputation to be defective or scratched or have the DLC taken by the person who had it before.

Also the minority of people who buy pre-owned games gets outweighted by the fact that people pay about £40-50 a game on new releases eg CoD sold a heck of a lot and I don't think the pre-owned versions killed that off etc. You get where I'm coming from. So no pre-owned games aren't hurting the industry.

 

[WestsideWonder1992]

Why Bother to buy a game preowned or rent for that matter if you have to enter a code that you only get new.I rented a NBA game forgot which one but it was new,and I couldn't play the season mode or whatever the hell it was because I had to pay about $15-$20 more to get it.Also I'm fine with buying DLC but not at $15 when the game before in the series only cost $10 and came with more content aka WAW at $10 vs MW2 at 15$

 

[WestsideWonder1992]

With games like MW2 it wont truly matter about whether it is bought pre Owned or new because of the quality and hype enough people will buy it new,and with the DLC costing money the company will make enough to mask the preowned games and their so-called killing of the industry.If a game is good enough people will buy it new,if it sucks then it's value will drop so bad that it will be pointless not to but it pre-owned (TNA's game whatever it was called)so glad I rented it.

 

[The Raven's Epitaph]

I don't nessacarily think that it's the "pre-owned" games that are killing the industry, it doesn't matter whether it's pre-owned or not, it's still the same game.

I understand what you're saying though. I believe that it's companies such as EA and THQ's greed that are killing the industry more than anything. EA and THQ wouldn't think twice about selling a game for £39.99 or more here in the UK and still have us pay another £5-10 on downloadble content to get the "full experience". It's a total rip off.

I hardly buy brand new games nowa'days anyway, I'm all for the pre-owned section. They have alot more choice than the new games that are out and they're much cheaper, so where could you go wrong? At our nearby Blockbusters, they have pre-owned games at amazing prices like 2 for £40, 4 for £20, 2 for £30 and you get a much wider variety than the new releases. The last games that I bought were Bioshock 1 - steelbook edition, I might add - for £8.99. Would you get it at that price if you bought it brand new? Like hell you would. Probably about 65% of my Xbox 360 collection consists of 4 for £20 games from Blockbuster, and they're all quality games like Assassin's Creed, Mirror's Edge, Bioshock and Lord of the Rings: Conquest. Buy those new? You're looking at around the £40-50+ mark, so I fail to see any problem here.

There are some advantages to new games yeah, and sometimes I don't have a problem with spending a little extra money to get some DLC up in my game, but there's a line I won't cross. If it's something incredibly ridiculous like a map pack in Modern Warfare 2 for £12.50 when half of the pack's maps are already in Call of Duty 4 anyway, then you can shit. That's just idiotic and greedy. I would however, fork out money for something like new Halo 3 maps and Smackdown vs. Raw 2011 characters. At least I know I'm going to get my money's worth out of things like that. - Just while I'm on the subject aswell and this is a question for anybody - Why would anybody in their right mind fork out hundreds of Microsoft points for Avatar Items on Xbox 360? It serves absolutely no purpose and half the time it's something as simple as a dancing monkey that pisses off your Avatar.

Anyway, in answer to the main question of the thread: I don't believe that pre-owned games are killing the gaming industry, I believe that it's greedy companies such as THQ and EA that are. I could list others, but I really can't be bothered.

 

[red ass skull muhfukkah]

Off-topic, but this thread made me realize how many European and British posters are on here. There's a lot of them.

However back to the topic. I for one usually only by used games, I barely make enough money to buy used ones never mind new ones for $60. The other main reason I buy used is because I don't have online (can't afford it) so I usually stay away from multi-player focused games and DLC and what not. It may be hurting smaller companies in the end, but I can't afford to pay full price and even if I could, I still probably wouldn't just to save some green. But publishers need to remember that we are in a recession at the moment and many people don't have money to keep their houses never mind spending $60 for a video game. Plus look at the companies complaining two of the biggest powerhouses of the gaming community. You don't hear smaller companies complaining because the sales of the game aren't important to them its the quality that means most and that's how it should be.