Battlefield Dev: Anti-Used Games Tech Isn't "Evil" or "Stupid"

[John Funk]

Battlefield Dev: Anti-Used Games Tech Isn't "Evil" or "Stupid"

Nixing the pre-owned market could inspire more diversity.

Rumors that next-generation consoles might block the use of pre-owned games has consumers in a bit of a huff these days, and some developers have backpedaled accordingly [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/117014-Crytek-Dev-Backpedals-on-Used-Games-Hate] on comments supporting the idea. At least one developer, however, thinks that gamers might actually see some benefits from the practice when all is said and done.

"I think [used-game blocking] can be a win and a loss," Patrick Bach, interim CEO of Battlefield developer DICE, told CVG [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/345972/dice-next-gen-used-games-block-can-be-a-win-and-a-loss/]. "I think it's a loss if it only means that you will be able to get fewer games for the same money. But in theory you could see it the other way, because a lot of companies making games today are struggling based on second-hand sales."

Many people would probably consider owning fewer games for the same price a loss, true, but Bach thinks that the driving question should be about quality and diversity, rather than quantity. By removing the secondary market and the risk that consumers will just purchase a used version of their game, he says, developers and publishers wouldn't be forced to follow the leader in popular genres to make a buck. "You feel like a lot of [online shooters] have the same formula and this is one of the reasons, which most people seem to not realize."

"[On] the positive side you could see more games being created because of this, and also more new IPs, because there'd be a bigger market for games that don't have for instance multiplayer," he said, noting that offline, single-player-only games were typically pirated.

Bach did agree that gamers who want to amass as large a library as possible would be hurt by the technology. "If you want to buy as many games as possible then this could be a problem, but if you want more diverse games then it's a more positive thing than negative."

"The only thing I know is that people are not doing it to be evil and stupid, it's about trying to create some benefits for consumers."

It's worth pointing out that Mr. Bach is wrong on at least one count - looking at the most pirated games of 2011 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115003-TorrentFreak-Reveals-Top-Pirated-Games-of-2011], the vast majority of them were games with an emphasis on the multiplayer experience. As for the rest of his comments, well, I'm sure they'll be hotly debated in comment threads across the internet until the world ends later this year.

(CVG [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/345972/dice-next-gen-used-games-block-can-be-a-win-and-a-loss/])

Permalink

 

[Dragoon]

I think this video sums up my feelings on this pretty well
Used games are a valuable part of the industry, it's sad that developers can't see this

 

[Agayek]

Many people would probably consider owning fewer games for the same price a loss, true, but Bach thinks that the driving question should be about quality and diversity, rather than quantity. By removing the secondary market and the risk that consumers will just purchase a used version of their game, he says, developers and publishers wouldn't be forced to follow the leader in popular genres to make a buck. "You feel like a lot of [online shooters] have the same formula and this is one of the reasons, which most people seem to not realize."

Do these people really believe this shit or are they just shoveling it because they're told to?

Used games do no more to the diversity of the gaming market than piracy does (read: nothing at all). If they want to block used sales to make more money, that's their prerogative (assuming of course the courts don't find it in violation of the First-sale doctrine), but they could at least be honest about it.

Eliminating used sales isn't going to have any noticeable effect on the games that are made, aside from the fact that there will be a massive drop in business for Gamestop.

Edit: DAMN YOU DUSTLESSDRAGOON AND YOUR NINJA WAYS.

 

[JasonEllis66]

I can't wait until they kill used games and then see no increase in game sales.

 

[MrBrightside919]

I REALLY don't like being told what kinds of games I can and can't buy...

Getting rid of used games won't "inspire" more diversity. If anything, it will keep companies pumping out the same games over and over. If they made money on a game once, why not keep doing it? These companies don't wanna lose money, so why even bother with a new idea? This whole argument is about money...not diversity...

The only thing I see inspiring diversity is the whole Kickstarter revolution...smaller companies getting donations from the gamers so they can create something the bigger companies wouldn't fund...something different...

That's how I see it atleast

 

[Legion]

"The only thing I know is that people are not doing it to be evil and stupid, it's about trying to create some benefits for consumers."

As soon as people say things like this, I stop caring what they have to say. They are not trying to do this to help us, they are doing it to help themselves. That's not being cynical, that's being truthful. Any benefit to us is purely a bonus, it's not their incentive.

It isn't evil or stupid, but it sure as hell is done to be nice.

 

[Snotnarok]

Used games are making developers struggle? Even a game that didn't sell well typically makes a profit.

I think what prevents a game from making a profit is not valuing a games price point and a game being shit.

Skyrim: 5-60 hour game that has loads of play methods, replay value and lots of things to do: 60USD

Vanquish: 5-7 hour game that has no multiplayer, real replay value or gamplay options: 60 USD

Which would you look at buying? And don't say neither because you're not into the games, that's not the point >:L

 

[Fr]anc[is]

There will be plenty of Bender laughter without me posting some as well. I fail to see how removing used games would make companies stop following the leader, that doesn't even make sense. And also, people would be less willing to take a risk on a new IP if they couldn't at least get some trade in credit.

 

[Your Fearless Captain]

Let's see how blocking used games would pan out:

Company A blocks used games
Company B doesn't
Company B's console sells many millions of more units the Company A console
Company A, now in a tight squeeze, disables used games blocking, sales go up, we all learn a valuable lesson

 

[Kae]

I will give the same argument I've given before, blocking off used sales it's a horrible idea because it makes rare games even rarer, let's say a game comes out for the next Xbox but for whatever reason only 100 000 copies of it are made, and it's good and people start to buy it, OK but the problem is that every copy that someone plays is one copy that nobody else is going to be able to play, thus making the game even rarer and skyrocketing the price, hypothetically speaking we could even run out of playable copies, just imagine that, it's horrible, just horrible.

 

[John Funk]

Used games are making developers struggle? Even a game that didn't sell well typically makes a profit.

This is actually incorrect. It's far more common for games to not make profits; publishers typically prop up their earnings with big "tentpole" games (your Battlefields, Call of Dutys, Zeldas, etc) that are guaranteed money-makers because so many of the rest of their portfolios will typically not provide sufficient return on investment.

 

[burningdragoon]

Who would describe their purchasing habits as wanting to "buy as many games as possible"? That's dumb. People don't just buy things indiscriminately (for the full price anyway). It's wanting to "buy as many games of the games I want as possible."

Some of his points aren't completely invalid. By destroying part of the market and not having to worry about, they'd be more free to experiment and not have "follow the leader". Now that makes some sense... assuming that by destroying the used market actually works out and they start rolling in money. If it doesn't work how they want then, well I guess we'll be right where are now, except we'd be stuck with any shitty game we do buy. That sounds better, right?

Edit: I very rarely buy used games anyway and this still bugs me.

 

[Notthatbright]

I know I'll be spending more money on all sorts of new games now that used games have gone away! With all the money I saved by not buying used, I'll have all this money to put in all those developers' coffers.

/sarcasm

Blizzard probably gets a pass. Valve and Bethesda as well. But if you think I'm putting money into any other company when its $60 a pop, you're going to be surprised. Then out of business.

Diversity? Please. It'll be the exact f-ing opposite as whats left of the industry try to compete for the fewer games that people will be able to buy since they can't trade in their games anymore.

 

[Tanis]

If it wasn't for used games sales I wouldn't have bought many sequels NEW and there's LOTS of DLC I would have never paid for.

 

[KeyMaster45]

"The only thing I know is that people are not doing it to be evil and stupid, it's about trying to create some benefits for consumers."

Bull. Fucking. Shit. This has nothing to do with benefiting consumers and if he truly believes that then he's not only a fool, he's a fool with his head so far up his ass he's tasting what he had for dinner last night.

 

[T'Generalissimo]

No, that is exactly what will not happen. Anti-used game technology will make consumers more risk averse, which will in turn make developers and publishers even more risk averse than they already are. If you want more diversity and creativity in the mainstream industry, you need to focus on reducing development costs so that you can reduce the price to the customer. Killing used games will not suddenly cause gamers to have more disposable income.

 

[Harker067]

If there was a way to kill used games an activation code etc what would really bother me is how many games could get lost because systems break, servers shut down or companies go out of buisness. The part that I like about used sales is that you can still find and get things that are out of print if you're willing to look hard enough. I'm tentatively willing to accept say an all digital future or some other system that removes used sales. But its going to have to work really well.

Also thinking out loud here doesn't owning fewer games mean buying fewer games? I'm honestly not sure that you'd really see a change in your bottom line as any argument there revolves around the people buying used still buying a copy of your game which I'm not sure is true. Maybe if there was then a more gradual pricing along a similar line to used sales but then you would just see the same sorts of buying habits and number of games as today so I guess I'm really not sure where his point is going. As far as I can tell you'd still see about the same marketing issues as games currently face.