THQ fights back against pre-owned videogame sales.

[Pookiablo]

I couldn't decide in which board this belongs so my apologies if it was meant to be else where.

 

THQ is the latest publisher to join the fight against the sale of used games.

 

The company confirmed PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions UFC Undisputed 2010 will require players to entire a one-time use code to access the game's multiplayer modes and features.

 

The code is available with all new copies of the game. If the game is bought used and the code has already been redeemed, then a $5 access fee is required.

 

"THQ is delivering a truly unmatched online gaming experience for fans of UFC and across all fighting games in general," the company said in a statement issued to IGN. "The main enhancement of UFC Undisputed 2010's premium online content is the new "Fight Camp Mode" in which players can assemble ranks of up to 40 people and train together.

 

"This is a significant value-add to the game as players can continually improve their skills by training with their friends and bringing teams of MMA specialists together."

 

UFC Undisputed 2010 is set for release next week. THQ said it will have additional details at a later date.

 

One-time use access codes continue to be a growing trend in the industry.

 

Electronic Arts plans to soon implement the "Online Pass," a code that must be entered before players are granted access to multiplayer modes in most of the publisher's upcoming sports titles.

 

Ubisoft has also stated it plans to combat used sales with a similar method.

 

Now I don't want this game (it looks ass) nor do I like UFC but I was interested in what people's thoughts were on this issue. Should game companies be allowed to charge folk who buy preowned games to use their online content.

 

Part of me thinks it's perhaps a bit harsh but I'm actually for it. Some convincing arguments were made on the usually retarded IGN article discussion. The retail stores are the one who are seeing ridiculous profits in this regard.

 

I suppose an alternative would be for game companies to drop their prices (say to something ridiculously low like £15/20) and while the profit margin might be smaller, they might find a few more people willing to pick up a new game straight away. Plus it'd make trade-ins a lot less profitable for stores. However, the realist in me doubts that that would ever happen. Who knows, I'm only throwing ideas about to get a discussion going.

 

So yes, share your thoughts!

[Daft]

Oh no. I won't be able to buy any of their crap games.

 

This is stupid. It would just encourage me to pirate tbh.

[dwarf]

Well it's the developer and publisher's right to sell a product that they want to sell, so it's just a case of whether it is morally right or wrong.

I'd say in this case it is fair, and it's very similar to the Bad Company 2 VIP codes you get when you buy it new.

 

What I don't like is the over-exploitation against consumers, in recent memory, the MW2 map packs. Yes, the consumer has shown that they will buy 3 new maps for £11, but that doesn't make it right. I hate Activision for what they've done there.

[Nicktendo]

Oh no. I won't be able to buy any of their crap games.

 

This is stupid. It would just encourage me to pirate tbh.

 

Same. I have a limited income. I have been wrestling with my mind recently between the option of continuing to buy every game second hand for less than £15-20. Or buy 2 or 3 a month, brand new and pirate the rest. The latter option means the Video Games companies get much, much more of my hard earned student loan. Buying games second hand or just pirating them, they get nothing.

[dwarf]

Same. I have a limited income. I have been wrestling with my mind

Topical ftw.

[Daft]

Same. I have a limited income. I have been wrestling with my mind recently between the option of continuing to buy every game second hand for less than £15-20. Or buy 2 or 3 a month, brand new and pirate the rest. The latter option means the Video Games companies get much, much more of my hard earned student loan. Buying games second hand or just pirating them, they get nothing.

 

Just use LoveFilm. £19 a month, or something like that, and 3 disks at any time.

 

I used to download music until Spotify came out. Now I pay £10 a month and have pretty much all the music I want legally, don't think I've downloaded anything since. It's about accessibility and price point and if the companies are just going to be dicks then they can not have my money.

 

The way I see it, commonplace piracy is a form of rebellion.

[Jimbob]

To be fair, it is a good idea. I know stores like to offer second-hand titles to you for cheaper (more money for the store). Ok, some people won't like paying $5 to get online access because they may have payed already for the XBL service already. But in a way, it is more money for the developers as well.

 

What developers should do really is to reduce the cost of the DLC for games. Some of it is way too much for what you get.

[Nolan]

I think this is bullshit, if a publisher wants to combat used game sales they need to give incentive to purchase new rather than punish those who can't afford to. Such as not charging so much. I like buying new games, I prefer it to used where you're likely to get a generic box no manual and a Disc rubbed on asphalt, but I can't afford to get most games new, and some games you can't even find new(in my case I got just the disc of Dead Rising the other day). It's rather irksome to look at the large amount of games that are 2 or more years old, but still $30 new. Nintendo is a rather capital offender, with many games (SMG, Mario Party 8?!, MP3(and the trilogy oddly), SSBB) staying at full price and some of the used versions costing more than new 1st party titles of the same age (and newer) from MS and Sony.

 

If someone is already having trouble scrapping money towards purchasing games new, I doubt they'll be happy when their used games have an arbitrary $5 extra tacked on for the full experience.

 

Buuut, this is within their rights. I just think it's the wrong way to about things.

[Nicktendo]

This subject really annoys me. Why can't media companies understand the concerns of consumers. It's the same with DVDs and Music as well. No one in there right mind would want to spend £15 on a film or CD, yet they complain when sales are low and people pirate stuff.

 

It's the same with games. If a game is going to be available for £20, four weeks after the release, albeit second hand, of course people will buy it. Personally I despise the fact that I have to buy everything second hand. But punishing people is not the way to combat it.

 

Here's an example - A Games Company releases a game which has been in development for 3 years, had a considerable budget of £15m and gets released to mixed reviews. It retails for £35-40 at a wholesale price of £20, and sells 300,000 copies in 10 weeks. Meaning the company gets £6m in this initial period. It came out against stronger releases and got lost in the charts to the better games.

 

They had forecast first year sales of 1,500,000 which means they are falling way short of making their target gross sales of £30m by a massive £24m. Over the course of the year the game shows some legs and sells a further 350,000 copies, bringing the total sales up to £13m. Still less than halfway to their original target and operating at a loss of £2m.

 

They can then reduce the wholesale price to £10, budget retailing at £20 to try and claw a few extra sales, but by now the interest in the game has waned and it's unlikely they will achieve anything close to their target maybe 100,000 extra sales at best. Figures suggest that 400,000 copies of the game were bought second hand in the space of one year and 250,000 copies were illegally downloaded, meaning the company has potentially missed out on 650,000 sales, which accounts for about 50% of the total sales and another possible £13m which would have seen them operate at a profit of £11m on this project...

 

But... they didn't, they struggled to break even. Jobs are cut, creativity is stifled in favour of 'safer' projects and they decide in future to tack on expensive DLC, extra chapters or unlockable content as a way of clawing back money.

 

So what's the solution? Well, someone suggests they sell the game at £10 wholesale with an RRP of £19.99 on release. With the same marketing budget, the game hits 1,000,000 sales in the first 10 weeks because of the low price point. Gaining the company £10m. Gamers see the game cheap in the store, and while it may not be brilliant, it's a little bit cheaper than the other new releases, which they can wait a little longer to play when they come down in price. The games sells a further 300,000 copies in the space of one year netting the company an extra £6m.

 

So despite the game being potentially average, the low price point has boosted sales against other stronger titles and the game is now operating at a profit of £1m despite failing to hit sales targets of 1,500,000. They might not have made a huge profit, but they can credit the project some success, see it's potential and try and rework a better squeal with the engine they have built.

 

Alternatively they could release the game as a download only title for £15 (the lowest price point for consumers) and still make more profit with 1,300,000 sales.

 

It's simple. £40 for an average video game is too much. Yes, most people are prepared to pay that for a Mario Galaxy 2 or a new Final Fantasy, but new IPs that get mixed reviews are never going to achieve results at such a high price point. It's not a sound investment on our part. So until pricing structures match consumer demand, the second hand market will always prosper, as will illegal downloads. People only have a limited income, if they could buy 2 new games for £40 or one new game for £40 they will almost always go with the 'sure thing'. Inevitably we will see a move where those unique, different games are dropped in favour of ones that can make a profit and if the issue is not addressed soon, we will all lose.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Nicktendo

[mcj metroid]

wow.. how arrogant are game developers..

[flameboy]

I think companies are perfectly within their rights to do this to be honest. If you are giving no money to the company via a preowned purchase, why the hell should they provide you with online content and the facility to play online when your not "paying" for it? (from a PSN perspective)

 

For those deriding it as a method that rules out rentals. EA Pass is going to offer free 7 day passes, plenty of time to decide whether you want to carry on with it and pay the £X for the access you would have got for paying £40 up front.

 

Now as for the price of games being so expensive I feel thats a different problem. Even though I guess if games were say £10 cheaper people may be lesser tempted to preowned and therefore this issue becomes null and void. I think this is a very different issue for DVDs and CDs as there are so many different alternative ways of accessing these two mediums, that are still bringing revenue streams to film/music companies especially now. Whereas gaming doesn't have this yet...perhaps the likes of Onlive will provide such options and other set top devices as well?

[Cube]

 

Just use LoveFilm. £19 a month, or something like that, and 3 disks at any time.

 

I used to download music until Spotify came out. Now I pay £10 a month and have pretty much all the music I want legally, don't think I've downloaded anything since. It's about accessibility and price point and if the companies are just going to be dicks then they can not have my money.

 

The way I see it, commonplace piracy is a form of rebellion.

 

Spotify premium is absolutely awesome. Especially as I can add new tracks/albums on my phone, it will download it automatically when it connects to the internet via WiFi so I can listen to it without worrying about signal. I'm only on a month trail (thanks to 3) but I'm not sure if I'll be able to pay £10 a month for it.

 

Then again when I condense the charges to £45 a month for more than enough phone minutes, unlimited texts, unlimited data, unlimited music and unlimited rentals (2 disks at a time) for Blu-Rays and games then it really doesn't sound that bad at all. So I may stick with bot LoveFilm and Spotify after the trials.

 

 

A bit more on topic. I find that a lot of recent high-rated games (Splinter Cell, Batman, Bayonetta) are becoming a bit more like films. I'm finding that I have less desire to play through a lot of games multiple times, and that they don't really take that long to complete. There will always be some games that I'd want to keep, but a lot of them I end up feeling like I should have rented them. I feel a bit robbed that they were £40.

 

 

I find that second-hand games are great for older games. If publishers want to compete with second hand games then they should lower the price after a while (without putting it in those stupid, ugly Player's Choice/Classics/Platinum/Whatever boxes). And GOTY/Gold/Whatever editions should be out after all DLC and be no more than £20.

 

Still, this "anti-rental/second-hand" stuff can be done right. In Mass Effect 2 you aren't missing out on anything amazing or substantial, but it's still nice to have a few extras for buying the game new. It's certainly a billion times better than in-game pre-order content that's only available in certain stores/countries (but that's another problem).

[Oxigen_Waste]

Same. I have a limited income. I have been wrestling with my mind recently between the option of continuing to buy every game second hand for less than £15-20. Or buy 2 or 3 a month, brand new and pirate the rest. The latter option means the Video Games companies get much, much more of my hard earned student loan. Buying games second hand or just pirating them, they get nothing.

 

You call 2 or 3 new games a month a limited income? That's ridiculous. 3 games a month? Really?

[gaggle64]

I'm actually OK with this. It makes sense to tie this to the multiplayer features they'll still be using resources to maintain, getting a fistful of pennies in return from pre-owned sales if the player chooses to use the service. If you don't like it, just don't buy the product. A product being too expensive isn't an excuse to steal it, it's an excuse to not buy it.

[flameboy]

You call 2 or 3 new games a month a limited income? That's ridiculous. 3 games a month? Really?

 

I KNOW SOME PEOPLE! I'm just about to leave home again and move out and I'm looking at 1 game every other month...

[gaggle64]

How does anyone even find the time for 2-3 games a month? The last game I bought was Mass Effect 2, and MW2 before that. I could afford to buy more but I'm still suckling plenty of gaming goodness out of what I have cause I don't have the time to blow through everything. 2-3 games a month and I'd just be sitting there with piles of games I hadn't even opened.

[McPhee]

Seems fair enough to me. Buying second hand you're getting to use the companies servers without contributing to the running of those servers. Paying some money towards that isn't unreasonable.

 

It could be argued that the initial purchaser contributed to the running of the servers, and thus the contribution for that copy has already been made, but personally I don't think that analogy quite works. By selling the game on it gains a new lease of life and will likely be played for longer than the initial purchaser would have played it alone.

 

The used game market is dying anyways, it won't be long before we're all running downloaded copies of games (ala Steam). We'll have nothing to trade in then...

[Daft]

Spotify premium is absolutely awesome. Especially as I can add new tracks/albums on my phone, it will download it automatically when it connects to the internet via WiFi so I can listen to it without worrying about signal. I'm only on a month trail (thanks to 3) but I'm not sure if I'll be able to pay £10 a month for it.

 

Then again when I condense the charges to £45 a month for more than enough phone minutes, unlimited texts, unlimited data, unlimited music and unlimited rentals (2 disks at a time) for Blu-Rays and games then it really doesn't sound that bad at all. So I may stick with bot LoveFilm and Spotify after the trials.

 

Yeah, I was kind of the same. I had a three month trial with LoveFilm thinking I'd cancel it at the end but it works out so much cheaper overall and actually I watch films and play games I normally wouldn't bother with.

 

I gave Spotify a go for a month to see what it was like and since then I just love it. It's so convenient and £10 isn't a lot considering it cost me more than £5 to use the tube/bus to uni and back every day (I cycle so no problem there ). It saves me the hassle of going to the shops and actually, with LoveFilm as well, not having all these DVDs/BluRays/CDs taking up space (or in the case of Spotify having all my music at any computer connected to the internet) is just really liberating.

[Ashley]

I've never understood the big fuss about second hand games. What would they rather happen? People keep games forever or people pick up second hand copies, enjoy it and buy future products?

[Nicktendo]

You call 2 or 3 new games a month a limited income? That's ridiculous. 3 games a month? Really?

 

Limited income, yeah. £3,500 a year student loan. £75 a week part time job (in a game shop, so I get discounts .) I suppose I exaggerated a bit. I usually get 3 or 4 games a months, but probably only spend about £50 because I buy them all second hand.

 

That leaves me at about £2-3,000 after cheap food, rent and bills to spend on what I want. About half of that goes on games. The rest on things I need like clothes. I am very tight with money.

 

Though when I go back home in 2 weeks I will definitely be joining lovefilm, I hate waiting months to play the latest games.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Nicktendo

[Pookiablo]

I've never understood the big fuss about second hand games. What would they rather happen? People keep games forever or people pick up second hand copies, enjoy it and buy future products?

 

That is an interesting point, I can think of a few games I got second hand that turned out to be awesome, but which I was unsure of initially, which have then prompted me into buying the sequel on release day at full price because I have a pretty good feeling that I'm gonna enjoy it.

 

If only they'd made a Body Harvest sequel....

 

I'm actually OK with this. It makes sense to tie this to the multiplayer features they'll still be using resources to maintain, getting a fistful of pennies in return from pre-owned sales if the player chooses to use the service. If you don't like it, just don't buy the product. A product being too expensive isn't an excuse to steal it, it's an excuse to not buy it.

 

I think DLC is what sources these things though - all the best online games are the one that release additional, expensive content such as with Halo and MW2 which people then suck up because they wanna keep playing the most up-to-date version of. Why do developers put more effort into creating in depth multiplayer experiences but be lazy on the single player aspect nowadays? Because they're gonna make more money in the long run if they have a enjoyable multiplayer that people will keep coming back to. If you look at PC games it's the same - Return to Castle Wolfenstein (NOT the most recent one) had a pretty average single player, but the multiplayer was awesome and id software pumped out lots of extra maps for it. I imagine, this was not only to release a GOTY edition but because it keeps interest in the game going and people are more likely to buy servers to host their own games of which a small amount is probably funnelled back to id (must be some sort of royalty or licensing thing surely?). People who strictly play the single player side of games tend to be the ones who don't have Internet access to begin with.

 

On point, I think of it as less of a fee for funding multiplayer services, and more a way of making up for a "lost" sale. It's funny how they weren't so concerned about it when single player epics like Ocarina of Time were floating about and online multiplayer was the haven of elite PC nerds.

[Ryan]

THQ think people buy their games in the first place?

[Nolan]

THQ think people buy their games in the first place?

 

Well aren't you just a silly fellow.

[Ten10]

Well to tell the truth Publishers don't make any money on Pre owned games sales so I guess this is their way of weedling into that market. I always used to see in the days of working in blockbuster that preowned games would be around £10 cheaper than brand new. Blockbuster got to keep all the revenue from that sale. That is why many retailers have taken to the preowned games market. HMV not too long ago and even Argos is considering this business model.

 

But hey if anyone wants to take dafts advice and join love film give me a pm I've got vouchers lying around all over the place.

[killer kirby]

I KNOW SOME PEOPLE! I'm just about to leave home again and move out and I'm looking at 1 game every other month...

 

Because this year is just a year of gaming heaven goodness, I have decided to only buy like 4 games every year after this one, just so I can truly concentrate on just those 3-4 games.