An idea to stave off used games sale without pissing people off.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

I've been thinking about the Online Pass system. I understand why publishers use it. Used sales do cut into a developer's profits, but they also tend to rub people the wrong way. It feels like people are punished for buying used games or trading in old games.

So how about we do this instead: Instead of using an online pass to hide features from used game buyers, why don't we use it to give people who buy the game new a discount on future DLC. Just input the code, and that account is now associated with a discount (maybe 2-3 dollars, possibly more if the developer is offer up more DLC).

People who buy used won't feel ripped off because they still get the game, and people who buy new will feel rewarded. What do my fellow Escapists think of something like that?

In theory, it is a good idea. The problem is that publishers will see this as a loss of revenue from DLC. The would essentially reverse engineer the game development process around it to end up right back where we started. They would release "unfinished" games and much more Day 1 DLC would be thrown out into the market essentially creating an online pass anyway.

It is a good idea from the consumer perspective, but the publishers would never stand for it. Even if they did agree, we would just end up back where we started.

It's a good idea but as the poster above me said, the publishers would never go for it. They also seem pretty big on Day 1 DLC. Just look at ME3 "From Ashes". They are now stepping it up so that you don't even get it free with new copies but have to pay for it anyway, or buy a collecters edition.

Even more annoying everybody thinks it's fine cus "OMG MASS EFFECT 3!!!". I am really worried about the precedent this sets, I do not want to buy a game for full price and then have 3 pieces of day 1 dlc that I have to spend extra on thrown out with it.

Dandark:
Even more annoying everybody thinks it's fine cus "OMG MASS EFFECT 3!!!". I am really worried about the precedent this sets, I do not want to buy a game for full price and then have 3 pieces of day 1 dlc that I have to spend extra on thrown out with it.

I totally agree. Already this year I won't be supporting Mass Effect 3 and Diablo 3 all due to precedents. (2 highly anticipated sequels by me) "OMG MASS EFFECT 3!!!" doesn't work on me either. I let out a simple "dang it" and was done with it. There are plenty of games out there happy to sell their game and not milk us to be hung up on 1 franchise title. Too bad more consumers can't do the same.

Want to encourage people to buy new without pissing everyone off? Alan Wake and Dead Island did it right. Give people the first DLC free. Not day 1 DLC that's obviously a gimmick, not pre-order exclusives. But the actual first DLC that comes out a month or two or three after launch. People will buy it new because they get the DLC as well, but people who get it pre-owned or borrow it don't feel cheated.

Savagezion:

It is a good idea from the consumer perspective, but the publishers would never stand for it.

Exactly. This, this right here, is what needs to be kept in mind when the cheerleaders start rambling on nonsensically about gamers' "entitlement"[1]

[1] Every time I see that, I think of Inigo Montoya

Savagezion:

Dandark:
Even more annoying everybody thinks it's fine cus "OMG MASS EFFECT 3!!!". I am really worried about the precedent this sets, I do not want to buy a game for full price and then have 3 pieces of day 1 dlc that I have to spend extra on thrown out with it.

I totally agree. Already this year I won't be supporting Mass Effect 3 and Diablo 3 all due to precedents. (2 highly anticipated sequels by me) "OMG MASS EFFECT 3!!!" doesn't work on me either. I let out a simple "dang it" and was done with it. There are plenty of games out there happy to sell their game and not milk us to be hung up on 1 franchise title. Too bad more consumers can't do the same.

Curios what has diablo 3 done to cause this point of view :o?

LooK iTz Jinjo:
Want to encourage people to buy new without pissing everyone off? Alan Wake and Dead Island did it right. Give people the first DLC free. Not day 1 DLC that's obviously a gimmick, not pre-order exclusives. But the actual first DLC that comes out a month or two or three after launch. People will buy it new because they get the DLC as well, but people who get it pre-owned or borrow it don't feel cheated.

I haven't played Dead Island, but Alan Wake mastered it. The DLC was a great way to continue the story after you had had the chance to play through the game and it left you building some tension for what was to come. Still I don't see the difference between day 1 DLC and this. The only difference is that you didn't get The Signal on day 1.

Edit: It's also worth mentioning that this did not make any difference for used sales. The idea has pretty much been done without success. Nothing will stop piracy or used sales. Publishers need to accept that.

Dandark:
It's a good idea but as the poster above me said, the publishers would never go for it. They also seem pretty big on Day 1 DLC. Just look at ME3 "From Ashes". They are now stepping it up so that you don't even get it free with new copies but have to pay for it anyway, or buy a collecters edition.

Even more annoying everybody thinks it's fine cus "OMG MASS EFFECT 3!!!". I am really worried about the precedent this sets, I do not want to buy a game for full price and then have 3 pieces of day 1 dlc that I have to spend extra on thrown out with it.

You know, you can get the game without buying the superfluous DLC. That's what I've chosen to do.

No. How about game companies just stop intentionally devaluing their products after the first sale because they want more profits? I could have sworn we had consumer rights specifically to protect us from this kind of bullshit.

Buying second hand is not wrong, we do not owe game developers anything, and they're perfectly capable of stripping our rights away without us helping them do it. I mean, what the hell? How they managed to get consumers on their side with this is completely beyond me, but I'm impressed by the sheer audacity of it.

Rastien:

Savagezion:

Dandark:
Even more annoying everybody thinks it's fine cus "OMG MASS EFFECT 3!!!". I am really worried about the precedent this sets, I do not want to buy a game for full price and then have 3 pieces of day 1 dlc that I have to spend extra on thrown out with it.

I totally agree. Already this year I won't be supporting Mass Effect 3 and Diablo 3 all due to precedents. (2 highly anticipated sequels by me) "OMG MASS EFFECT 3!!!" doesn't work on me either. I let out a simple "dang it" and was done with it. There are plenty of games out there happy to sell their game and not milk us to be hung up on 1 franchise title. Too bad more consumers can't do the same.

Curios what has diablo 3 done to cause this point of view :o?

Non-optional DRM, a real money auction house...and the worst is what they did with the skill system.

You have 6 skills.

1. left click
2. right click
3-6. 1-4 on the number keys
(and a potion button but that doesn't count. btw, there are no mana potions, only health<--wtf?)

there are 4 left click and 4 right click skills for each class which you unlock when you reach a certain level. Its so horribly dumbed down from Diablo 2 it doesn't even look fun to play because all of the character customization through skills is gone. All barbarians are the exact same. All witch doctors are the exact same. The lack of variation is a big crippling factor to the game's replayability, considering D2 was already really grindy and repetitive as it is.

newdarkcloud:
I've been thinking about the Online Pass system. I understand why publishers use it. Used sales do cut into a developer's profits, but they also tend to rub people the wrong way. It feels like people are punished for buying used games or trading in old games.

So how about we do this instead: Instead of using an online pass to hide features from used game buyers, why don't we use it to give people who buy the game new a discount on future DLC. Just input the code, and that account is now associated with a discount (maybe 2-3 dollars, possibly more if the developer is offer up more DLC).

People who buy used won't feel ripped off because they still get the game, and people who buy new will feel rewarded. What do my fellow Escapists think of something like that?

Why don't we (i.e publishers) simply start leasing the game instead of selling it? (Like Steam does).
Will solve the reused market-problem by killing it outright. With everything going more and more digital, this seems like a likely thing to evolve. Isn't this a better solution?

i have always been of the mindset that if companies want people to buy games new, new copies should come with something extra but non-essential. i dont think online passes are a big deal though. i mean used books are expected to have wear and tear, used cars are expected to not run quite as well as a used car, why do gamers expect used games to be exactly like new games

Honestly, I don't have a problem with online passes now. I just bought one for NFSHP and I feel it was worth it. Now the price was a little steep, ten bucks, maybe if it were five I wouldn't have a problem with it at all.

Well, take that as anecdotal example, but I wouldn't like that system. If I'm not expecting to buy DLC, why would I want a discount? I suppose I could just sell the code but it would be too much hassle, I'd rather just give it to somebody.

*waves hands* This is not the doublepost you're looking for.

That's a very old idea actually.

An expansion pack does the same thing. The devs hope you keep the original game on your shelf and buy xp1 for it and then later xp2, etc.
But no, the future is all digital download or worse, streaming. Kills used sales, middle men, production costs and physical distribution. Saves so much money it's worth losing many offline gamers over.

newdarkcloud:
I've been thinking about the Online Pass system. I understand why publishers use it. Used sales do cut into a developer's profits, but they also tend to rub people the wrong way. It feels like people are punished for buying used games or trading in old games.

So how about we do this instead: Instead of using an online pass to hide features from used game buyers, why don't we use it to give people who buy the game new a discount on future DLC. Just input the code, and that account is now associated with a discount (maybe 2-3 dollars, possibly more if the developer is offer up more DLC).

People who buy used won't feel ripped off because they still get the game, and people who buy new will feel rewarded. What do my fellow Escapists think of something like that?

Used sales do cut into their sales, but so do used car sales, used video sales, used computer sales, and used TV sales. Used sales exist in every other market, and there are businesses which, like GameStop and such, have systems designed to reap as many benefits from used sales as possible. I don't pity publishers for used sales at all. They're being petulant, and milking the still young state of the video games market to try and stave it off as long as possible.

Anyway, I'm afraid a $2-$3 coupon is not going to make people buy a new game when buying it used will save them $20-$30. A good thought, but ultimately it's about money. The best thing publishers can do to make sure players don't feel ripped off is to not make them feel like they're making a down payment on a car when they buy new.

Ive always figured that consumers had a right to a physical product and the re-selling of such a product. Used sales do harm the industry but it is simply something the industry will have to accept. It is wrong of the publishers to re-sell a multiplayer section of a game when they have no right to any part of a game when it is physically sold. Every other industry which sells physical products that can be re-sold has learnt to put up with this without the bullshit we get from publishers. Please tell me why Ido not have the right to do whatever I please with a game I bought. Also the suggestion for a dlc coupon will simply lead to a bigger focus on DLC development (a lesser main game) and to make 'extras' for new buyers will simply lead to content being witheld to be used as incentive to buy new. They should not do anything about the used sales because they have no right to interfere with a game's transfer past selling it.

or maybe they could just sell the games for a little less and make them a little more worth playing...

i know im not the only one who cant afford many games and quite simply doesnt see many games that i need to play right away, and so i wait for price drops and used copies...

ablac:
They should not do anything about the used sales because they have no right to interfere with a game's transfer past selling it.

This, in a nutshell. And then people get called 'entitled' when all they want is the consumer rights to be respected.

But it's so much easier to do a shoddy job with your products then guilt trip your customer base. I really hope the 'AAA' market gets knocked down a notch soon, because the quality they offer is B- at best lately. Now, I only hope that because I'm pretty damn sure they just aren't going to improve on their own.

Books have been resold for as long as they have been written, and yet the industry is still intact. How can this be so?

WoW Killer:
Books have been resold for as long as they have been written, and yet the industry is still intact. How can this be so?

Books have finite life. Eventually they fall apart. I myself have bought a couple of copies of the same book just because the others passed away. Just one reason.

My idea is for them to have Digital distribution sales actually at a reasonable price.

I bought Infamous 2 the other day brand new for 20 quid, Inside I seen a voucher for 50% off the original Infamous from the PSN store, I then thought oh I should check that out...So I went onto the store to see what the price was and it was 22. 2 more expensive that I just bought its sequel for, out of curiousity I looked at how much Infamous 2 was and it was 50!!!

Its 30 more expensive and when I'm done with Infamous 2 I'l be able to sell it on for a similar price to the price I bought it for!

Or y'know, how about we protest and refuse to put up with any of this bullshit regarding used games because it's nothing but corporate greed and our right as consumers to resell our products and we shouldn't let devs push us around.

Captcha: Zero tolerance, how fitting.

that,s a great idea.
but the problem is that the only people who see used game buyers as evil are shitheads that only want short term profit.alternatively we can boycott them and show them we don,t want to be treated as thieves.

DoPo:
Books have finite life. Eventually they fall apart. I myself have bought a couple of copies of the same book just because the others passed away. Just one reason.

Games don't have finite life? What sort of trade is there for 10 year old games? How about 20 years? Do you not think a book can last 20 years, as in the physical copy falling apart past the point of a reasonable resale? I've got several books printed 20 years ago still in pristine condition. Classics from Charles Dickens, Agatha Christie, Jane Austin, Robert Louis Stevenson etc. are still selling strong. Why don't people just buy used?

Rastien:

Savagezion:

Dandark:
Even more annoying everybody thinks it's fine cus "OMG MASS EFFECT 3!!!". I am really worried about the precedent this sets, I do not want to buy a game for full price and then have 3 pieces of day 1 dlc that I have to spend extra on thrown out with it.

I totally agree. Already this year I won't be supporting Mass Effect 3 and Diablo 3 all due to precedents. (2 highly anticipated sequels by me) "OMG MASS EFFECT 3!!!" doesn't work on me either. I let out a simple "dang it" and was done with it. There are plenty of games out there happy to sell their game and not milk us to be hung up on 1 franchise title. Too bad more consumers can't do the same.

Curios what has diablo 3 done to cause this point of view :o?

Diablo 3 isn't solely precedent, that just weighs in. Mostly it has to do with the entire game being based around the auction house. Diablo 1 and 2 weren't designed around trade as much as 3 is no matter what any of the Blizzard team says. If anything 1 was more trade centric than 2 was but I don't see either as being particularly about trading items. It was simply about obtaining them like any RPG with random drops. It's multiplayer was about playing with friends and working together.

As for what people did online, well, that doesn't matter as much as Diablo claims. I couldn't make a level 1 character without people asking me if I wanted them to speed run me through the game but I don't see Blizzard adding a feature that encourages speed running. Actually, I see them doing the opposite and making speed runs as hard to pull off as possible if not making them impossible entirely.

Mass Effect 3, I was cool with until I saw the content and marketing of the Day 1 DLC. That alone was a precedent. Diablo is more of a lot of little things adding up to a big thing.

newdarkcloud:
snip

Hahahahahaha. That is a neat coincidence. May I quote from the Darksiders 2 preorder on Steam:

"Pre-purchase The Darksiders II now and receive the Darksiders II "Arguls Tomb" expansion, the first DLC pack, when it becomes available after launch."

New World Computing did this thing with Might and Magic IV and V where if you had both games installed on your computer, they combine into one game that contains all the contents of both games in addition to a few bonus quests.

Obviously this is not feasible for a lot of games but it could work for certain games, especially RPG's. In fact, there are mods for the Baldur's Gate games that combines everything into one game.

DoPo:

WoW Killer:
Books have been resold for as long as they have been written, and yet the industry is still intact. How can this be so?

Books have finite life. Eventually they fall apart. I myself have bought a couple of copies of the same book just because the others passed away. Just one reason.

Yeah, I've got to take issue with this. You haven't taken into account that games also have a finite life. Have we all forgotten that games are currently on a disk based format which get scratches, rendering them useless?

This isn't immediately directed at you, but this outlook in general.

Doc Slingblade:

DoPo:

WoW Killer:
Books have been resold for as long as they have been written, and yet the industry is still intact. How can this be so?

Books have finite life. Eventually they fall apart. I myself have bought a couple of copies of the same book just because the others passed away. Just one reason.

Yeah, I've got to take issue with this. You haven't taken into account that games also have a finite life. Have we all forgotten that games are currently on a disk based format which get scratches, rendering them useless?

This isn't immediately directed at you, but this outlook in general.

The problem is that is a case of mishandling, whereas pages degrade naturally.
You leave a disc on a shelf for a hundred years and come back there will be a healthy layer of dust but otherwise it will be completely fine. You leave a book and its going to yellow, the ink will fade, and after some time the pages will crumble.
Books also wear and tear from general use, technically games spinning in your system don't really wear and tear (well they do slightly but it is minuscule).

Also assuming you're talking about normal tiny scratches, they most often won't hinder the game, and even then you can resurface disks.

Honestly the best way to do it, imo, is with day one DLC that is provided free with all new games. If you get a new game you get the DLC. If you buy used you can either skip the DLC or pay for it. The crap with ME3 is bull though. Day one dlc should be for ALL new purchases, not just collector's edition.

Honestly, I think the best way to solve the problem would be to cut Gamestop out of the loop. Major publishers could show preference to a competing outlet (sell games to them at cheaper prices, or boycott Gamestop altogether), in return for a cut of the used sales. The problem isn't with the publisher or the consumer; it's with the greedy retailer.

WoW Killer:
Books have been resold for as long as they have been written, and yet the industry is still intact. How can this be so?

It takes almost no investment to create a book, while it takes a massive investment to create a video game. The book industry doesn't need that many sales to make a profit; the game industry needs a ton of sales to stay afloat.

dyre:
Honestly, I think the best way to solve the problem would be to cut Gamestop out of the loop. Major publishers could show preference to a competing outlet (sell games to them at cheaper prices, or boycott Gamestop altogether), in return for a cut of the used sales. The problem isn't with the publisher or the consumer; it's with the greedy retailer.

Why are you assuming that only the retailer is greedy? What makes you think that the publishers and developers aren't just as greedy, if not more because they are trying to cut out the retailers. If you or anyone else who thinks used games are hurting the devs can explain to me exactly how used games are hurting them without using the bullshit "they take money away from devs" excuse I'd love to hear it.

him over there:
Or y'know, how about we protest and refuse to put up with any of this bullshit regarding used games because it's nothing but corporate greed and our right as consumers to resell our products and we shouldn't let devs push us around.

Thank you. I even said in another tread about the used game "issue" that we should just refuse to buy any games (new, used, or otherwise) until the developers, publishers, and retailers agree to cut the crap.(unfortunately none of them are likely to ever actually agree to anything that doesn't give them at least 80% of the benefits unless pushed to the extreme)

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked