Activision Joins the Anti-Used Games Crusade

[AzrealMaximillion]

I find the reaction to this... entertaining.

The only people who really have a reason to complain about this sort of thing are people who buy their games used, and people who for some unknown reason don't want have their console online. While I feel for the latter, they're relatively few and far between, and frankly typically just technophobic incompetents who probably shouldn't be gaming in the first place.

Now, as for the former group, the people who buy their games used, I'm going to clue you in on something:

ACTIVISION DOESN'T CARE ABOUT YOU.

They're not getting any money from you. In fact, in terms of games with online multiplayer aspects, you are arguably COSTING them money.

The argument of "I'm going to have to pay for stuff that should have been included in the game" is moot. You weren't paying ACTIVISION for the game in the first place, so it's not like you have any say in what should, or should not, have been included on the disc.

There area few holes in your point, as well thought out as it was. Activision has been rising the price of their games, AND bitching about used game sales. Here in Canada most games come out at $50-60. Activision's games come out at $70. and considering that 1 CAD = .97USD, it's hard to defend a company who's complaining about lost profir when their can be as much as a $20 price difference between it's games and everyone elses.

Another hole your argument has against it is the fact that Activision now has the record for the highest grossing entertainment release ever. You saying that people who buy games used are costing Activision money really isn't significant when they made over $500 million on MW2's release. Also targeting people who buy used games in your point was a little much. It's not like the people who are complaining buy nothing but used games. I myself usually buy a game brand new unless there's nothing but used copies. Which brings me to my next point.

Walk into GameStop and look at the used shelf. Chances are, you'll find over 5 copies of Modern Warfare 2 on the Used shelf(I've seen up to 12 copies myself). You're lucky to find a new copy of it these days. If there are no new copies available to purchase, why should someone who can't find a new copy of the game be forced to pay extra when they have to buy it used? And there's a reason why you'll find a lot of used copies of MW2. The game doesn't hold interest for very long. This is why you'll see lots more used copies of MW2 than Bioshock. If the games that Activision were better, they would not have to worry about used copies selling so much. Yeah Activision doesn't care about used game customers. But to essentially punish those who want a deal is asinine.

 

[Xanadu84]

From my perspective, any attempt to either cut developers in on the money made from sale of there games, which they made, and therefore reduce there need to raise prices or cut costs, is a good thing.

From my perspective, the used PC game market dried up a long time ago, so I don't really have anything to lose either, in the interest of full disclosure.

The real irony here for a PC gamer is that DRM could actually be reasonable on consoles. Look at it this way: Buy a new game for your 360. It registers to your live account (Free or paid, of course) once. From that moment on, playing that game on any X Box with that account works fine, but a game can only be registered once. Unless the game is returned to Gamestop, and Gamestop pays the publisher a small fee to renew the license. To keep it user friendly, when you put in a game and it try's to register, if it fails to register, you have 2 weeks grace period to play the game before it cuts you off. That way, you can still lend games to friends, and unless they are lending it for a prolonged period of time, you don't have to put your live account on there 360. And people with spotty internet connections have more then enough time to get registered. I think that that would be reasonable DRM, and would allow the used game market to survive, without screwing over developers, or inconveniencing players.

 

[Natdaprat]

Yet another reason I'm not buying Call of Duty. I hate how in all the recent CoD games, map packs and DLC have played big parts. What's wrong with paying full price for a full game? It feels like they purposefully exclude content so they can sell it to us later.

 

[Autofaux]

I support this action. The more publishers on this route of carrot over stick approach to games distribution, the better. Americans are getting ripped off at GameStop anyway, and for 89 bucks AUD, the more content included Day One the better.

Now that Activision is on board, watch the smaller publishers follow suit.

Still not paying for Modern Warfare 2 until that suit is settled, however.

Most likely they will just cut out stuff that they planned to release with the game and say it´s the DLC.

I wouldn't count out the possibility of Activision pulling a dick move like that. But I'm seeing more titles presenting the contrary. Mass Effect 2, BFBC2, MoH. Granted, all EA titles, but if EA is doing things this way, whats to say Activision won't? It's a popular model, practiced by a massive publisher and it is successful.

That aside, I support the Ten Dollar model, but not Activision.

 

[vxicepickxv]

I find the reaction to this... entertaining.

The only people who really have a reason to complain about this sort of thing are people who buy their games used, and people who for some unknown reason don't want have their console online. While I feel for the latter, they're relatively few and far between, and frankly typically just technophobic incompetents who probably shouldn't be gaming in the first place.

Now, as for the former group, the people who buy their games used, I'm going to clue you in on something:

ACTIVISION DOESN'T CARE ABOUT YOU.

They're not getting any money from you. In fact, in terms of games with online multiplayer aspects, you are arguably COSTING them money.

The argument of "I'm going to have to pay for stuff that should have been included in the game" is moot. You weren't paying ACTIVISION for the game in the first place, so it's not like you have any say in what should, or should not, have been included on the disc.

You think that Activision thinks you acutally buy the game? That's cute. As far as Activision is thinking you buy a contract that allows you permission to use a product they still feel that THEY own. This is why they want to charge the money for used games.

Activision does care about people that buy used games. Activision thinks they are thieves.

 

[Gindil]

Normally I side with the publishers on this, but Activision are shooting themselves in the foot.

Modern Warfare 2 was what, £50? No shit, I can't believe people bought that second hand!

Actually, I don't think they are. I once believed that DLC that cost was more of a burden to the industry. But it does a few things:

It causes the developer not to forget about older games (MW2) and move on to new projects full force. This is great if you liked a few older games but they're no longer supported

It causes the publisher to compete for your dollar. That's always good since it can drive down the prices involved.

Eventually, they'll get around to trying to compete with Steam rather than used games but at least in the interim, it forces more innovation in the industry about where you spend your money.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

You people realize retailers are mostly responsible for the current pricing of new games, right? Even if publishers started selling new copies at lower rates to retailers, retailers would still price them at $50-$70 so as to maintain/increase the viability of their "used games" model.

Also, first sale doctrine is great for consumers. But its being exploited by massive corporations for extreme profits. To that point they're making it look like a legal loophole.

So, yea, this is an incredibly shitty situation for everyone except retailers. Even consumers are getting fucked, as they're essentially being forced to pay for pirate copies.

It's not actually retailers that are to blame. Activision actually jackerd up the PC prices as well as the U.K. prices of MW2 just to see if people would still but it ata higher price. If retailers were to blame for pricing then how come not all games that come out are the same price? There's always a 5-10 dollar difference if you take a look at a store shelf. And this comment made very little sense.

"Even if publishers started selling new copies at lower rates to retailers, retailers would still price them at $50-$70 so as to maintain/increase the viability of their "used games" model."

Then how come 3D Dot game Heroes came out at $40? Super Street Fighter IV? RE5:Gold? Your baseless accusations of the retailers doesn't really make sense when I can pull examples that go directly against it off the top of my head. And if retailers had control over the prices of video games, then why do we even have a trade in program? You realize that once a video game is done being made it's all about copying the data onto disks en masse and packaging. The cost to develop a video game these days is on average 10 million for a single platform release and around $28 million for a multiplatformer. Small compared to how much is made off games. Retailers and console manufacterers don't make as much off the games.

 

[Woodsey]

Normally I side with the publishers on this, but Activision are shooting themselves in the foot.

Modern Warfare 2 was what, £50? No shit, I can't believe people bought that second hand!

Actually, I don't think they are. I once believed that DLC that cost was more of a burden to the industry. But it does a few things:

It causes the developer not to forget about older games (MW2) and move on to new projects full force. This is great if you liked a few older games but they're no longer supported

It causes the publisher to compete for your dollar. That's always good since it can drive down the prices involved.

Eventually, they'll get around to trying to compete with Steam rather than used games but at least in the interim, it forces more innovation in the industry about where you spend your money.

I meant they're shooting themselves in the foot over their initial pricing. Their DLC is still shit though; £15 for 3/4/5 maps? It's a complete steal.

 

[benbenthegamerman]

I bought inFamous for $20, about 5 months after it's release, mostly because i was pressured into it by some guy working at game stop (almost to the point of harrassment. i was there to buy Uncharted 2, and just that.) I didn't regret the purchase, as it was an awesome game, but i dont know whose side i should be on now: game stop, from where i get my games, or these companies who make them.

 

[The Austin]

Jesus, I'm not going to pay $60 for a 5 hour game Activision!

Leave us alone! Leave us aloooone!

Damn straight! Why should I have to pay another $10 for some map pack that only works with multiplayer to get more use out of the game? I don't even understand why there was a single player campaign with that game when clearly they got their bread buttered off the multiplayer anyway. Cut the crap with your half-assed single player demo campaigns and just give the people what they clearly want instead of charging someone $10-$12 an hour for your short single player!

You see, you're a guy who gets it!
I don't give two shits about your half-assed multiplayer, I want a single player experience!

 

[demoman_chaos]

Why don't they have multiplayer for CoD free when bought new in the first week, and $20 if you get it new within a week of launch? Ignorant people will eat that up, and it will stick with their overpriced shenanigans.

You think $60 USD is bad.

$70 Canadian. With 1 Canadian Dollar = .97 U.S. Dollars.

Now that's getting jipped. Especially when most other games here come out at $50-$60 Canadian.

Fixed your exchange rate, you had it $97 US = $1 Canadian all because of a missing period.

 

[KiKiweaky]

If they jack up the prices of their games and make you have to purchase dlc they will slowly but surely begin to lose fans.

 

[duchaked]

whatever, keep it up and I might even stop renting Activision games, because right now that's all I'm doing if anything

 

[Kaez]

I get why business models like this are employed.

Gamer A goes in and buys a new version of a game, the retailer gets some of the profit, and the publisher earns a chunk as well.

Gamer A finishes with that game and trades it in for a new game. Same thing happens for the retailer and the publisher.

Gamer B goes in and buys the game Gamer A traded in, publisher receives nothing, retailer earns a nice chunk of cash. That's a sale that the publisher would have wanted.

Don't get me wrong, but I quite enjoy used games, in fact without used games I wouldn't have been able to get my hands on a copy of FFX, which I did yesterday (a mint condition copy as well). The best solution to the problem that I come up with would be that the retailer pays a small percentage of the used game earnings to the publishers, keeping most for itself. I'm pretty confident that would work. The amount doesn't even need to be that high. Maybe like five or ten percent, at the highest twenty to thirty percent.

But I'm over-optimistic I think, because we know publishers want a lot for their troubles. I don't think they'd be happy with that.

And I think it's funny, a bit frustrating, and stupid that you all are "Activision is the devil!" I keep mentioning this, but it's Kotick you want, not the actual company. It was never this bad from the until he stepped up. I'm pretty sure if we got him out of the CEO chair and got someone else in that actually had a slight clue on how gaming works we might actually see a better company.

 

[z3rostr1fe]

What's with the PR department of Activision these past few months?!?!?!

 

[Jared]

Oh this ol' chestnut...despite what they can try...people, will always want to get the best value, and, if that means used, well...I am sure we can miss out on a lil DLC

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

One positive news story about Acti/Blizzard. Just one...

Can anyone find one?

 

[strigoivii]

Activision lost loads of fans after screwing us pc owners with modern warfare 2 if they want to screw people through DLC then put only single player on disc and all multiplayer through steam. I'm happy without DLC and updates... just prefer a little value for money... no more £50 for a 4 hour game. besides when you buy online you do not receive anything solid just files and as such... the lack of production costs and removing the retailer should make the game vastly cheaper. I've always said make the games cheaper and piracy would not be profitable but people like activision are worse than drug dealers and care about their users even less....... they'll never get another penny from me.