The us paying for the code on top of the gamed game "debate"

[AngryApples]

ETA:

I have absolutely NO idea how the title ended up as such drivel

It's supposed to be:

THE BIG DEBATE: USED GAMES


Not sure if anyone listens to the IGN podcasts, but this seems to be getting a lot of time lately -

The "big debate" is around the growing push by publishers to attempt to restrict used games sales

An example is the recent surge in games using one use codes for the online aspect (or special content - witness Batman AC Catwoman element) to the first purchaser or those that pay for a one off code when buying 2nd hand/renting

The IGN gang (US and UK) seem to be mainly behind the publisher on this, citing the cost of maintaining servers for multiplayer, etc and also the amount of developers going out of business

They also state we need to get used to it as soon all games will be download only

Personally, I'm dead against it and list a few reasons/arguments:

1) To me, the multiplayer server maintenance cost is a poor argument due to:

a) The cost should be figured into the projected sales and costs in the first place

b) The servers support is often dropped (either reducing the amount of hardware or switching it off full stop) not that long after game release, with a few exceptions such as COD etc

c) This argument cant be applied to the games where the code is merely to access content that is already present on the disc (Batman AC, I'm looking at you again!)

2) Why should the games industry be special? - if we go to extremes, car companies dont ban you from selling their cars used (we can all imagine what it would do to new values if they did!) and at the lower end of the scale, imagine not being able to pass a book on after youve read it!

3) Developers going out of business doesnt stack up - this has nothing to do with the online codes stuff as if a developer is putting out titles that sell by the truckload the publisher would want their titles come what may - survival of the fittest, as with any other business?

4) The "All download in the future" is a crock of crap unless we are talking a decade down the line - how many people (as a % of UK coverage) even a few years from now will have a broadband connection fast enough to regularly download full xbox/PS3 games

Personally, there are times when I'm quite happy to pay full retail for a game (I'm mainly XBox centred) but others when I sit it out for a few weeks and either get a good discount deal or buy used

I'm sure there are a lot of people on here that wouldn't buy some games new if they thought they had no way of selling them oon/trading in

And with a very personal view, having worked for a major toy company (who decided to have a stab at being a games publisher) some time ago who managed to screw up a well respected studio with their st take on how to sell computer games (including some seriously dire games from external developers that any idiot would have seen a mile off would fail!), I have no sympathy for publishers whatsoever

Edited by AngryApples on Thursday 9th February 19:08

[Badgerboy]

AngryApples said:

ETA:

And with a very personal view, having worked for a major toy company (who decided to have a stab at being a games publisher) some time ago who managed to screw up a well respected studio with their st take on how to sell computer games (including some seriously dire games from external developers that any idiot would have seen a mile off would fail!), I have no sympathy for publishers whatsoever

Edited by AngryApples on Thursday 9th February 19:08

Was it Hasbro? Those dogs have a lot to answer for. The only saving grace was when Microprose got canned, the dev's leaked the source code and the community finished the game for them. I miss their sims dearly.

[Polarbert]

I remember there was a mention of this in a thread in here some time ago.

I don't have anything as insightful to add as the OP, but I do agree and think that it is daft.

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is games rentals. Fair enough single player would be fine to try, but you wouldn't be able to give the multiplayer a go without forking out 800MSP. I had that problem when I rented Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit, but luckily I was the first person who redeemed the code.

Now I've heard that blockbuster are altogether removing the code on rentals to preserve the 2nd hand value of the copy.

[AngryApples]

Badgerboy said:

Was it Hasbro? Those dogs have a lot to answer for. The only saving grace was when Microprose got canned, the dev's leaked the source code and the community finished the game for them. I miss their sims dearly.

Indeed!

I cut my teeth testing on GP3

Ahh, them were the days..........

[AngryApples]

Polarbert said:

I remember there was a mention of this in a thread in here some time ago.

I don't have anything as insightful to add as the OP, but I do agree and think that it is daft.

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is games rentals. Fair enough single player would be fine to try, but you wouldn't be able to give the multiplayer a go without forking out 800MSP. I had that problem when I rented Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit, but luckily I was the first person who redeemed the code.

Now I've heard that blockbuster are altogether removing the code on rentals to preserve the 2nd hand value of the copy.

Worst still, one of the team on IGN borrowed a Vita game from one of the other guys and it came up on screen saying if he continued with a new game it would wipe the previous chaps save games (built into the game itself so not choice!) - very sneaky

[0a]

Ah, nothing to do with The Game then?

[Mr Happy]

To be honest, I don't mind the whole idea of a one-time-use multiplayer unlock code with games.

Why shouldn't the studios see a return on the resale of their work?

If you want all the features, buy it brand new. If you want to pay cut down prices, then don't be surprised when you get get cut down features.

Edited by Mr Happy on Thursday 9th February 22:24

[Polarbert]

Mr Happy said:

To be honest, I don't mind the whole idea of a one-time-use multiplayer unlock code with games.

Why shouldn't the studios see a return on the resale of their work?

Because they've already been paid for their work when someone purchased the game. They are being paid twice.


Its like buying a second hand car from a private seller and having to pay Vauxhall £3,000 to take a clamp off the wheel so you can use it.

[ZeeTacoe]

The cost of multiplayer is negligible cos most games these days release the server software so we can run our own servers..............

[Oakey]

Polarbert said:

Mr Happy said:

To be honest, I don't mind the whole idea of a one-time-use multiplayer unlock code with games.

Why shouldn't the studios see a return on the resale of their work?

Because they've already been paid for their work when someone purchased the game. They are being paid twice.


Its like buying a second hand car from a private seller and having to pay Vauxhall £3,000 to take a clamp off the wheel so you can use it.

It doesn't just screw over the next buyer, it also screws over the seller as it will affect the used price and resalability of such an item.

[Mr Happy]

Polarbert said:

Mr Happy said:

To be honest, I don't mind the whole idea of a one-time-use multiplayer unlock code with games.

Why shouldn't the studios see a return on the resale of their work?

Because they've already been paid for their work when someone purchased the game. They are being paid twice.


Its like buying a second hand car from a private seller and having to pay Vauxhall £3,000 to take a clamp off the wheel so you can use it.

Using that analogy, it would be like the first owner of the car paying Vauxhall £1500 for the brand new car, then the next owner paying the first owner £4,500...

Codes don't stop you using the product totally, so that's another flaw in that analogy. More accurately it would be like being unable to carry passengers in your new car. Although you don't licence a car, but own it outright so the argument is moot.

There's nothing wrong with the use of access codes, it's been used in PC gaming for years.

[Mr Happy]

Oakey said:

It doesn't just screw over the next buyer, it also screws over the seller as it will affect the used price and resalability of such an item.

They're not designed as a commodity though.

[Polarbert]

Well anyway, the developer/publisher is going to be paid twice for their work, which isn't really fair.

[Oakey]

Mr Happy said:

They're not designed as a commodity though.

So when people buy new games, do you not think they take into account how much they'll get for it at trade in? In fact, it's highly likely they even traded in some of their old games so they could buy your new shiny game. If you make their games worth less at trade in, then they might just choose to buy less games as a result.

[Mr Happy]

Oakey said:

Mr Happy said:

They're not designed as a commodity though.

So when people buy new games, do you not think they take into account how much they'll get for it at trade in? In fact, it's highly likely they even traded in some of their old games so they could buy your new shiny game. If you make their games worth less at trade in, then they might just choose to buy less games as a result.

Ok, so lets look at it like this:

Dev of AAA title sells the original game, baseline price of £45. They might see about 10% of that, so £4.50.
Retailer of the AAA title sells the original game to the first owner, baseline price of £45. They might see about 20% of that, so £9.
Lions share would go to the publisher, lets say they get the 50% of the price, so £22.50. The rest of the costs can go in overheads and so on. Simplistically viewed I will admit but it's a fag packet calculation at best.

First owner trades it in for £20. Dev sees £0, retailer sees -£20, publisher sees £0.

Second owner buys it for £35 (it's a AAA title remember, this is what usually happens - check how much MW3 is being sold for right now on the second hand market). Dev sees £0, retailer sees +£15, publisher sees £0.

The retailer of this one title has now seen £24 out of one game. The developer has seen £4.50, and the publisher £22.50. Surely something is wrong there. This is assuming that the first owner traded it in at the original selling shop (which isn't too far out of the realms of possibility)

The fact that the developer is being paid twice with an access code is neither here nor there. In fact, the retailer is being paid twice for it irrespective - and they are making an utter killing on the side, the second sale is pure profit for them and no-one else. It's quite simply hugely unfair on the people who actually make the games in the first place, and I wouldn't ever begrudge them a second slice of the profit pie for the resale of the game.

[Mr Happy]

Polarbert said:

Well anyway, the developer/publisher is going to be paid twice for their work, which isn't really fair.

So is the retailer, but it's all profit for the retailer on the second sale... How fair is that to the devs etc? The retailers are profiting more off the devs work than the dev could ever hope to get from it. For what, putting it on a shelf and dealing with a few BO ridden 14 year olds??

[BonzoG]

Mr Happy said:

There's nothing wrong with the use of access codes, it's been used in PC gaming for years.

There's a difference between a CD-Key and an account-linked access code.

One is a simple method of trying to make sure pirates don't benefit from online features - you can't get on a multiplayer server without a valid key, but you can pass the key to the next person when you sell the game. Easy.

The other destroys the value of many games on the second hand market - especially where the single player content might be weak to begin with.

Mr Happy said:

The retailers are profiting more off the devs work than the dev could ever hope to get from it. For what, putting it on a shelf and dealing with a few BO ridden 14 year olds??

Bricks and mortar cost money, the retailers are providing a service as arbiters of the second hand transaction. If the devs don't like it - publish independently and take a larger split of the profit. Publish online and you can get the best of both worlds - there is no second hand market, so you can appeal to those who would have bought your games second-hand by selling them for less in the first place, whilst still taking a larger slice of the pie.

A simplistic view perhaps, as there are obviously overheads involved with publishing online, however with the amount of indie developers taking over Steam these days, the margins can't be that bad.

[Mr Happy]

BonzoG said:

Mr Happy said:

There's nothing wrong with the use of access codes, it's been used in PC gaming for years.

There's a difference between a CD-Key and an account-linked access code.

One is a simple method of trying to make sure pirates don't benefit from online features - you can't get on a multiplayer server without a valid key, but you can pass the key to the next person when you sell the game. Easy.

The other destroys the value of many games on the second hand market - especially where the single player content might be weak to begin with.

Any pc game using the steam platform for authentication uses an account linked and non-transferable code. Yet, as you say it's a popular platform for devs, both indie and big name. Surely that is disproving your own argument?

BonzoG said:

Mr Happy said:

The retailers are profiting more off the devs work than the dev could ever hope to get from it. For what, putting it on a shelf and dealing with a few BO ridden 14 year olds??

Bricks and mortar cost money, the retailers are providing a service as arbiters of the second hand transaction. If the devs don't like it - publish independently and take a larger split of the profit. Publish online and you can get the best of both worlds - there is no second hand market, so you can appeal to those who would have bought your games second-hand by selling them for less in the first place, whilst still taking a larger slice of the pie.

A simplistic view perhaps, as there are obviously overheads involved with publishing online, however with the amount of indie developers taking over Steam these days, the margins can't be that bad.

An extremely simplistic view. It costs money to develop decent games, but according to your post the retailer deserves more of the pie than the people who both make and distribute the game simply because they have a shop and deal with sweaty 14 year olds...?

Devs and publishers have bricks and mortar properties and such like, thats simply not a valid argument when the retailer is making more money out of the devs work in percentage terms than the devs would ever see in per unit returns.

Online distribution is not feasible yet. Broadband speeds aren't high enough to make digital distro suitable for the mainstream customer base. In the short term, until a workable solution for mainstream digital distribution is found, feature access codes are the best solution for the console gaming industry to protect their investment and ensure a decent return on their investment.

The 2nd hand market is here to stay, so why shouldn't devs capitalise on it? The answer is that there is no reason at all that they shouldn't. People are too used to this idea that keys are a pc thing and don't belong on consoles, but it is the second hand/pre owned crowd who are causing it to happen.

[CBR JGWRR]

0a said:

Ah, nothing to do with The Game then?

I got told off for doing that...

[CBR JGWRR]

Mr Happy said:

Oakey said:

Mr Happy said:

They're not designed as a commodity though.

So when people buy new games, do you not think they take into account how much they'll get for it at trade in? In fact, it's highly likely they even traded in some of their old games so they could buy your new shiny game. If you make their games worth less at trade in, then they might just choose to buy less games as a result.

Ok, so lets look at it like this:

Dev of AAA title sells the original game, baseline price of £45. They might see about 10% of that, so £4.50.
Retailer of the AAA title sells the original game to the first owner, baseline price of £45. They might see about 20% of that, so £9.
Lions share would go to the publisher, lets say they get the 50% of the price, so £22.50. The rest of the costs can go in overheads and so on. Simplistically viewed I will admit but it's a fag packet calculation at best.

First owner trades it in for £20. Dev sees £0, retailer sees -£20, publisher sees £0.

Second owner buys it for £35 (it's a AAA title remember, this is what usually happens - check how much MW3 is being sold for right now on the second hand market). Dev sees £0, retailer sees +£15, publisher sees £0.

The retailer of this one title has now seen £24 out of one game. The developer has seen £4.50, and the publisher £22.50. Surely something is wrong there. This is assuming that the first owner traded it in at the original selling shop (which isn't too far out of the realms of possibility)

The fact that the developer is being paid twice with an access code is neither here nor there. In fact, the retailer is being paid twice for it irrespective - and they are making an utter killing on the side, the second sale is pure profit for them and no-one else. It's quite simply hugely unfair on the people who actually make the games in the first place, and I wouldn't ever begrudge them a second slice of the profit pie for the resale of the game.

And then somebody decides they don't like it and trade in again and repeat the process...