THQ Won't Punish Gamers Who Buy Pre-Owned

[Logan Westbrook]

THQ Won't Punish Gamers Who Buy Pre-Owned

THQ isn't planning to abandon its Online Pass scheme anytime soon, but it wants to make sure that gamers don't feel cheated when they shell out their ten bucks.

THQ's Online Pass is a simple arrangement: If you want to play online you either buy a new copy of the game or cough up a small fee. But it's those who are paying the fee that THQ's Danny Bilson is most concerned with right now, because he wants to give gamers something for their ten dollars, so they don't feel like they're being "punished" for not going for the full price option.

Bilson said that THQ wanted to make "great game that people wanted to play," but pre-owned sales made it harder to fund them, as none of the money went back to the developer. He said that the Online Pass was a way of still generating revenue from used sales, but he also wanted to make that ten-dollar expenditure seem worth it.

He said that as well as unlocking online play, the Pass would also activate some content. He used THQ's next WWE game as an example, saying that in exchange for their cash, players would unlock the first DLC pack, which included additional playable characters. He said that THQ was trying hard to make it seem like a positive experience. "It's simple and difficult," he said. "We don't want to punish our consumers ... So we're trying to figure out how to give those used guys something for their money, not just unlock the lockout ... I'm trying to make it work for everybody, so we have a happy consumer base whether they're buying used or new."

This revised Online Pass is starting to sound a lot like EA's Project Ten Dollar, especially the setup for Mass Effect 2 or Dragon Age: Origin, where the content offered for buying new was quite significant. Some people will still rail against this, as the idea of day one DLC is still a new one, but THQ is at least trying to make it as reasonable as possible.

Source: Eurogamer [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-08-24-thq-we-wont-punish-used-game-buyers]







Permalink

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

I wonder what I'll they do with Saint's Row 3's DLC...SR2's DLC was shitty, but had infinite rocket ammo, so I didn't really care.

My stance on project ten dollar and it's ilk (like this): I like it. I encourage it. I want EVERY publisher to do it.

 

[silver wolf009]

Dose this mean that im going to have to pay something else in adition to LIVE in order to play a game online? Jesus talk about nickel and diming.

 

[Delusibeta]

Dose this mean that im going to have to pay something else in adition to LIVE in order to play a game online? Jesus talk about nickel and diming.

Not if you buy new, which seemed to be the problem with THQ's first version of the pass: lack of communication made it seem like online modes was an optional extra.

 

[silver wolf009]

Dose this mean that im going to have to pay something else in adition to LIVE in order to play a game online? Jesus talk about nickel and diming.

Not if you buy new, which seemed to be the problem with THQ's first version of the pass: lack of communication made it seem like online modes was an optional extra.

Well the reason I buy used really is that ive gotten a nostalgic craving for a very old game. This means that, hypotheticall, If in 10 years I went to get the last copy of HALO 3 for 10 dollars used I couldnt play multiplayer. Still seems like nickeling to me.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

I'm sorry but from my understanding money never goes to the developer, it goes to the publisher.

 

[crotalidian]

I like this move, if publishers and devs can find a balance in this we can end up with good extras and still allow companies to recoup costs from used sales.

Of course cheaper releases in the first place may help but one thing at a time. I'm all for this

 

[Keava]

Dose this mean that im going to have to pay something else in adition to LIVE in order to play a game online? Jesus talk about nickel and diming.

Blame Microsoft for charging you for Live. Don't have such problems on PC.

And yea, I support all the "Project-Ten-Dollar" initiatives. You buy used you need to be ready for some sort of disadvantage, it's like that with pretty much every other item you buy used be it car, phone or mp3 player.

And please, don't talk about 'old' games. Somehow in my crappy 2nd-world country our retailers figured how to make discount series from the games they sell, and after 2-4 years I can buy the titles original and new for 30-40% of the price they had on release often in bundles where with 2 games I get 1 for free.

 

[silver wolf009]

Dose this mean that im going to have to pay something else in adition to LIVE in order to play a game online? Jesus talk about nickel and diming.

Blame Microsoft for charging you for Live. Don't have such problems on PC.

SNIP

Im fine with paying for live, but I dont want to pay a fee for every used games online feature. Live is a leech yes, but for every game to do this is to lie down naked in a tub of leeches. And that will bleed you dry fast.

 

[mad825]

I wonder what I'll they do with Saint's Row 3's DLC...SR2's DLC was shitty, but had infinite rocket ammo, so I didn't really care.

My stance on project ten dollar and it's ilk (like this): I like it. I encourage it. I want EVERY publisher to do it.

*ahem*
needn't I have to remind you and everyone, that it's not fool-proof (especially on the PC)

provoking the (pre-owned) consumers or even treating them like a animal in a cage, they will find a way around the system be it legal or illegal.

Dont forget that this isn't piracy (by law) and nor is it base around people sharing freely, if the pre-owned market develops a dent, jobs will be lost, the economy will notice some level of suffering.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Could someone explain to me why pre-owned sales make developers and publishers mad? I'm fairly certain that enough people buy new to give them a decent profit, and used games have already been sold new once, so they got a cut from that.

Of course cheaper releases in the first place may help but one thing at a time.

Also, this.

 

[Jared]

Well, they are certainly taking an intresting angle to it. But, the question as to wheter people will take to it...

 

[Cartographer]

I wonder what I'll they do with Saint's Row 3's DLC...SR2's DLC was shitty, but had infinite rocket ammo, so I didn't really care.

My stance on project ten dollar and it's ilk (like this): I like it. I encourage it. I want EVERY publisher to do it.

*ahem*
needn't I have to remind you and everyone, that it's not fool-proof (especially on the PC)

provoking the (pre-owned) consumers or even treating them like a animal in a cage, they will find a way around the system be it legal or illegal.

Dont forget that this isn't piracy (by law) and nor is it base around people sharing freely, if the pre-owned market develops a dent, jobs will be lost, the economy will notice some level of suffering.

Not to put it bluntly, but the pre-owned market is well on the way towards putting a sizable dent in the game production market. If the trend continues unabated, why would any developer/publisher produce a game knowing they will only see a tiny fraction of the money it makes? How long before they don't even make enough to recoup their overheads?

In a world where either new games get made, or we just end up endlessly buying increasingly older second-hand games, I know which I'd choose.

People need to comprehend that if they want new, innovative and interesting games, then they need to support the industry and pay for them.

 

[Cartographer]

Could someone explain to me why pre-owned sales make developers and publishers mad? I'm fairly certain that enough people buy new to give them a decent profit, and used games have already been sold new once, so they got a cut from that.

Of course cheaper releases in the first place may help but one thing at a time.

Also, this.

Lets say there are 10,000 people who would buy your game, so 10,000 sales to be made.
Lets say only 1,000 people actually buy new, the remaining 9,000 wait for used.
Lets say your game sells for £40 new, of which £15 is mark up by the retailer, £15 is publisher, and £10 is developer.

Lets say over its life, the average used price is £15.

You as a developer made £10,000
You as a publisher made £15,000

The retailer makes £15,000 (new) + £135,000 (used).

And you wonder why they're mad.

(all figures are purely for illustrative purposes, but not that far from the truth)

 

[molesgallus]

I wonder what I'll they do with Saint's Row 3's DLC...SR2's DLC was shitty, but had infinite rocket ammo, so I didn't really care.

My stance on project ten dollar and it's ilk (like this): I like it. I encourage it. I want EVERY publisher to do it.

*ahem*
needn't I have to remind you and everyone, that it's not fool-proof (especially on the PC)

provoking the (pre-owned) consumers or even treating them like a animal in a cage, they will find a way around the system be it legal or illegal.

Dont forget that this isn't piracy (by law) and nor is it base around people sharing freely, if the pre-owned market develops a dent, jobs will be lost, the economy will notice some level of suffering.

Not to put it bluntly, but the pre-owned market is well on the way towards putting a sizable dent in the game production market. If the trend continues unabated, why would any developer/publisher produce a game knowing they will only see a tiny fraction of the money it makes? How long before they don't even make enough to recoup their overheads?

In a world where either new games get made, or we just end up endlessly buying increasingly older second-hand games, I know which I'd choose.

People need to comprehend that if they want new, innovative and interesting games, then they need to support the industry and pay for them.

That is not happening. Games companies are making fortunes.

 

[mad825]

Not to put it bluntly, but the pre-owned market is well on the way towards putting a sizable dent in the game production market.

talking out of your lower colon?
Give me proof then I will spend my time reviewing it otherwise the message is clear, you might as well start preaching to me that idea that Piracy has killed the gaming industry and all that BS which know-one can prove or at least provide reasonable evidence to suggest such thing.

If the trend continues unabated, why would any developer/publisher produce a game knowing they will only see a tiny fraction of the money it makes? How long before they don't even make enough to recoup their overheads?

that's a no brainier, capitalism's main objective is make as much money as possible regardless how much profit they make, they always want more.
the big players make profit anyway, it's the small time people that matter as they are the ones less likely to make any profit and survive any bad games like RealTime worlds who sadly spent too long on a bad game.

In a world where either new games get made, or we just end up endlessly buying increasingly older second-hand games, I know which I'd choose.

meh, it all goes to the bargain bin eventually

People need to comprehend that if they want new, innovative and interesting games, then they need to screw over the industry and pay for them.

*cough*
new??innovative???interesting???
those are big words.
is it me or am I seeing clones upon clones on today's market? not even the so "revolutionising" Deus Ex: HR cannot escape GoW's cover clone (from what been shown soo far)

 

[Talvrae]

Dose this mean that im going to have to pay something else in adition to LIVE in order to play a game online? Jesus talk about nickel and diming.

Not if you buy new, which seemed to be the problem with THQ's first version of the pass: lack of communication made it seem like online modes was an optional extra.

Well the reason I buy used really is that ive gotten a nostalgic craving for a very old game. This means that, hypotheticall, If in 10 years I went to get the last copy of HALO 3 for 10 dollars used I couldnt play multiplayer. Still seems like nickeling to me.

Does you think there will still be a big community playing online Halo 3 in ten years anyway?

For me it seem reasonable

 

[WanderingFool]

I dont see the problem. You buy the game used, you pay $10 to gain online access (if the game has online features from what I understand), and thats it. The only reason I would see people complaining is when they end up paying more for a used game than a new game. Ive seen used games at gamestop for the same price as a new game, and even saw a 6 month old game going cheaper than its used version (total mindfuck, BTW).

So if a new game is $60 and a used is anywhere from $40-$50, maybe even $55, tacking on the $10 for online access, can increase the price to $50-$65, $5 more than new. But if you know said game costs $10 for online access because its used, and you put together that it will cost more than the game new, why not just buy the game new? and even if the Used game plus online costs $60, would it hurt to just pick up the new copy?

I may be missing some point along the way, but it looks pretty clear to me...

 

[Jezzascmezza]

Why don't they just not charge an extra ten dollars for people who buy pre-owned?
It make not lot sense to me.