Jimquisition: Fighting The 'Problem' Of Used Games

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Fighting The 'Problem' Of Used Games

For the past two episodes, Jim Sterling has railed against publishers and their war on used games. In the concluding part, he praises those tactics that he does NOT find obnoxious, and would like to see further encouraged. Rather than punish used gamers, companies need to reward new ones. Pretty simple ... you'd think.

Watch Video

Rewarding people who buy new? What a concept!

Great mini series jim. For a second i thought you were going to talk about the opposite >.> the beginning surprised me :P

Another nice video. Cheers Jimquisitor.

But... Alright, hang on a second. I don't get this. How is it that Locked Away Content A is being taken away from used buyers, but Locked Away Content B is being rewarded to new buyers?

Why couldn't you equally say that systems like the one Rage has are terrible because they mean that people who buy the game new are locked out of some content because publishers are dicks and all that, but online passes are a great alternative because they reward the new buyer for their allegiance, etc etc?

I honestly don't think any game is worth 60 dollars. DLC or not I would never buy a game at that price and only on holidays would I possibly buy a game in the 50s. I know how expensive it is to make games these days but I have other things to spend my money on. If you asked me publishers and developers should be looking at more ways to make there games more cost effective.

Final Fantasy IX music makes this the greatest video on the internet, regardless of content, by default.

I don't see a difference between giving free DLC only to new buyers and not giving some DLC to used buyers.

What's the difference between taking a part of a game and calling it DLC or making a slightly smaller game and adding DLC? Would we even know?

I can see the value of not putting the DLC right at the beginning and allowing players to put in the code at any time in the game, but I don't see why the bonus has to be small and insignificant.
More appreciation for the loyal fans paying full-price is a bigger bonus?

stick AND carrot?
BRILLIANT!

random_bars:
But... Alright, hang on a second. I don't get this. How is it that Locked Away Content A is being taken away from used buyers, but Locked Away Content B is being rewarded to new buyers?

Because both buyers still get the whole game, but those who buy new get bonus content. It's like a pre-order bonus.

random_bars:
But... Alright, hang on a second. I don't get this. How is it that Locked Away Content A is being taken away from used buyers, but Locked Away Content B is being rewarded to new buyers?

Why couldn't you equally say that systems like the one Rage has are terrible because they mean that people who buy the game new are locked out of some content because publishers are dicks and all that, but online passes are a great alternative because they reward the new buyer for their allegiance, etc etc?

Because Locked Away Content A is a significant part of the game, like multiplayer, while LAC B (in theory) would be some sort of added bonus for buying new, like special items or abilities for use in game. The difference being that a used game without access to LAC A would be half a game, while it's LAC B counterpart would be a full game without the cherry on top.

random_bars:
But... Alright, hang on a second. I don't get this. How is it that Locked Away Content A is being taken away from used buyers, but Locked Away Content B is being rewarded to new buyers?

Why couldn't you equally say that systems like the one Rage has are terrible because they mean that people who buy the game new are locked out of some content because publishers are dicks and all that, but online passes are a great alternative because they reward the new buyer for their allegiance, etc etc?

Because online passes usually unlock content that was already on the disc, such as the multiplayer function for Dead Space 2.

I agree with most of the stuff he said, though it only affects me in a small way since I buy 70% of my games for PC.

random_bars:
But... Alright, hang on a second. I don't get this. How is it that Locked Away Content A is being taken away from used buyers, but Locked Away Content B is being rewarded to new buyers?

Because with online passes and the like you are not able to experience a BIG part of the game because you bought it used. With stuff like Rage the part you wont experience is a very tiny part that doesn't really offer any game changing rewards and will probably be skipped over by a lot of people who even by the game new. Whereas online passes just put a big barrier in front of one of the main game modes.

All those pricks need to do is make good games. If they make shitty games they have no right to demand more money for them. I loved that you put MGS3 in the video because that's a prime example of a game I want to be buried with. Even if it has a few idiotic dialogues between Snake and Eva in that fuckin' cave.

I completely disagree.

Everyone should get that extra content. And it is really just being held back from the used sales.

Want a way to fight used sales? Simple: replay value. That's all it takes. Get them not to sell their games in the first place, there will be a shorter supply of used games and the customer will think more about getting a new copy rather than a used one.

Dark Souls wasn't mentioned :(

Well, as I said in another thread, Dark Souls is giving away a soundtrack, artbook, DVD and complete guide (downloadable), as well as the limited edition case if you preorder. In my opinion, although many people won't care for that stuff, it's great fan service. Of course the problem with this is that all of the bonus stuff can be sold but the fact that you are receiving a special edition of the game may be more appealing to fans.

Anyway, I think that is a good example of how to get in more sales to combat used games.

Popularity is the only real way to deal with the fight against used sales though, well at least make a good amount of profit in the long run (greedy companies who aren't maximizing their profits will just have to stick to fair preorder bonuses if they already have popular franchises). Either create a lot of hype like Dead Island did (I don't know if it sold well but the trailer definitely got a lot of attention for the game), make the game stand out and worth getting new (Much harder though, Demons Souls didn't even get to a million sales worldwide. Minecraft isn't an example having no used sales) or make a sequel (in my opinion, the best way to deal with used sales, think about how many gamers will be buying Skyrim new on release).

Then of course there are the options to go download only or make the game a lot cheaper. Used sales don't necessarily apply to Minecraft and the game is cheap so people will carry on buying it due to it's rising popularity.

Exactly. This is what they should do. Give bonuses to people who buy new (I still never understood why so many people hated EA's Project Ten Dollar, which was not base game content withheld to used buyers, but free DLC for people who bought the game new), proper DLC (good pick using Red Dead Redemption for that, they did a nice mix of free and paid add-on content for that game and it kept people playing for quite a long time), and having the balls to lower the price of your game when you know it's not worth $60 (thank you again for selling 3D Dot Game Heroes for $40, Atlus).

Now if you'll all excuse me, I need to get on the Xbox Live Marketplace and buy Jim Stering's Motherfucking Mantis Pack. I don't know what game it's for, I just know with a title like that, I must own it.

This episode was stupid... seems to me like Jim was forced to make this episode cause it contradicts what he said in the others... I call bullshit.

Swifteye:
I honestly don't think any game is worth 60 dollars. DLC or not I would never buy a game at that price and only on holidays would I possibly buy a game in the 50s. I know how expensive it is to make games these days but I have other things to spend my money on. If you asked me publishers and developers should be looking at more ways to make there games more cost effective.

I think the developers want to do this, yet we know a certain group of publishers want to money grub and we know this doesn't work. I think developers want to sell their games a bit cheaper so they can get more sells out of it. They want to make a lot of DLC and not have to worry about starting on a sequel as soon and the first week's earnings come in. So they can have a sequel done by next year. It's the dumbass publishers that in my opinion don't know how money works because all they want is more income with less input which doesn't work. How they expect to make money when they churn out crappy overpriced games and then get angry when it doesn't sell well or more people bought it used. It takes money to make money when these guys stop being pussies and let the developers do what they do best instead of hounding them like slaves. That's when they will see the money they "deserve".

I like the "Make your game cost efficient so you can stop charging so god damn much" Idea.

I give the current attitude towards used games five more years tops. It's just so stupid and inane to suggest that used games are a bad thing! I can't see this attitude lasting much longer, nobody's gonna buy into it for long. Jim's suggestions are great, and I really think that rewarding new buyers is where the market will end up.

Fighting The 'Problem' Of Used Games

Fighting used games IS the problem.

Used games have been here all along as the industry grew to the greedy behemoth that is today. Used games helped it grow by introducing people to game franchises at a lower cost, people who would have never paid $50-$60 for new IP's but will after they've been hooked by a cheaper, used game.

It has been mentioned too many times, even by Jim himself, that the existence of used games increases sales of new games. The game industry treating used sales as the enemy shows how out of touch they are with reality.

And how much money are car companies "losing" when someone "steals" from them and buys a used car from a lot without any cut?

Oh that's right, THEY DON'T BITCH ABOUT IT.

Since the big publishers want to fuck up gaming with codes, DRM, exclusive game-unbalancing preorders, day-one pay-for DLC or just DLC in general while craming "social aspects" down our throats, they could at least take a lesson from the car companies and offer REWARDS for loyal customers and buyers of new model instead of using that loyalty to make them pay for extras and jump through more hoops to get it.

In the old days before the developers got ate up by publishers and got greedy, they'd release small bits of digital content or DLC as a reward for loyal customers between expansion packs. Now it's "Why should you get this shit for free, you potential theif?? Pay up or piss off!"

But they won't get it. They never do. The question is "Do you want me to buy your fucking game or not?", but the response to any legitimate criticism is to fuck off and not buy the game if we don't like something, THEN turn around and complain about low sales and used game purchases by people who weren't convinced the game was worth the new price tag... at which point the companies blame piracy for their low sales numbers because they CERTAINLY couldn't have been responsible in any way for lack of purchases with the way they do business or treat customers.

The big publishers continue to show they don't care about the product, or the customer, they just want every nickle and dime they can shake out of your pockets while treating you like a criminal with the invasive DRM, and I have zero sympathy for their cries of pity over unproven claims of piracy because I feel none of them are worth supporting anymore.

All i have to say is THANKS FOR MAKING ME WANT SAINTS ROW THE THIRD TO COME OUT EVEN MORE. Although the instant it comes out im gonna play the SH*T out of it.

random_bars:
But... Alright, hang on a second. I don't get this. How is it that Locked Away Content A is being taken away from used buyers, but Locked Away Content B is being rewarded to new buyers?

I'll try to explain it like this.

Game A locked content = multiplayer
Game B locked content = some random ass cave somewhere.

I miss out on a good portion of Game A until I am FORCED to put in a code to play part of a game I already paid for.

With Game B, I miss out on some small random ass cave that doesn't really detract from the game, and I'm not required to put it in. I can do it whenever I feel like getting around to it.

What on earth was the cat game? I want it!

And people still complained about this system. Just look at the comments in the Escapist news article when they announced Rage was going to be doing this. (Although the title of the article was kind of misleading) Battlefield Bad Company 2 had a great system. You could still play the multiplayer if you got the game used you just couldn't play the periodically released new maps ( which were free by the way) unless you bought an access code.

To the complainers of this system I'll say the same thing I've said before. If you want the content then buy the game new or buy it used and pay for the dlc after. No one is going to cancel their pre-orders en masse or join your little boycott so you can save five dollars at GameStop.

At the start of the introduction I thought "Oh, no. Something happened to his sunglasses."

Thank God for Jim Sterling remembering me to pre-order Saints Row the Third.
Because I believe it's such a great game that I will get my precious €65 out of it when buying new. And that pre-order bonus is damned nice icing on a superb cake :D

Really? You don't mind the Rage pass thing? That seems unusual for you Jim...

But I personally think it's just as much of a dick move as locking off multiplayer. It doesn't matter what the content is that is locked, if it's already on the disc publishers have no right to deny it to you. You own the content, you bought the disc, they shouldn't be allowed to hold anything away from you. That's extortion.

But I agree that pre-order bonuses are fine too. They aren't things that are already on the game disc and aren't necessary to make the game a complete experience, but still offer an incentive to buy new. Although I would prefer that the DLC in question also be available for purchase separately. I should be allowed to have the content if I want it. I shouldn't be denied any possibility to access it because I didn't buy the game in a certain way. Not only does it act as an incentive to buy new it also makes more money for publishers as well. Since you would need to pay for it that would give you an incentive to buy the game new because that way you would get it for free, and it is a way for publishers to make extra money out of something which would not require them to put any more effort or money in to making new content. It's the perfect way to do it for both gamers and publishers! It's madness that this method isn't more widely used.

daxterx2005:
What on earth was the cat game? I want it!

Saints row the third, the cat is an extra outfit, gun and vehicle

daxterx2005:
What on earth was the cat game? I want it!

Oh god, i thought that the sad news was that Sony, EA, Ubi etc sued you. For libel or something, who knows. You had me. I almost cried with you!

I too don't think that a game is worth sixty dollars. Sure you can argue the length I play it for, or how much it cost to make the thing in the first place, but consider this.

The film Avatar cost 500 Million dollars to make. And it made back all of its money at the theatre alone. Then it was released on DVD for twenty bucks.

Your game might cost millions to make, but if a film can cost even more and still manage to sell at a low price, you're doing something wrong.

veloper:
I don't see a difference between giving free DLC only to new buyers and not giving some DLC to used buyers.

Online play isn't DLC.

What's the difference between taking a part of a game and calling it DLC or making a slightly smaller game and adding DLC? Would we even know?

Online play isn't DLC.

I can see the value of not putting the DLC right at the beginning and allowing players to put in the code at any time in the game, but I don't see why the bonus has to be small and insignificant.
More appreciation for the loyal fans paying full-price is a bigger bonus?

Online play isn't DLC.

I don't have an problem with used games, I have a problem with retailers like gamestop. Their whole business model isn't about selling new games, its about getting people into their store and onto the used game treadmill.

Unlike other retailers gamestop and similar "pawn shop" retailers leech off the marketing and promotion of publishers to attract customers, then when the customer is in the store try their damndest to get customers to buy used which parasitically sucks up the publisher's portion of revenue. Publishers are too chicken to just say "no" which leads to the endless whining cycle.

Sadly unless it is stopped ubisoft DRM and D3 will be the model for every game with a higher budget. You don't pay for the game, you pay for an account on a server somewhere.

The nice thing is between steam, android, and other internet sources there are plenty of independent games that I can use to suck up my gaming time. I never have to look at another bland "visceral" "AAA" title again to scratch my gaming itch.

101 hours into Dungeons of Dredmor and still enjoying it...$5

I don't think any big publisher title is going to beat that.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here