Cliff Bleszinski: Don't Punish Pre-Owned Buyers

[Nuke_em_05]

Good 'ol Cliffy B.

Seriously, I don't see how they can claim any right to sales of the product after initial sale. I can see it for cracking and file-sharing, where the product is duplicated without a purchase. With pre-owned, they already got their money on the initial purchase. Second-hand sales can't exist without initial sales anyway. Someone has to buy it, play it, not want it anymore, and sell it back, to a friend or to Gamestop.

Cliff has a pretty good point, if you build games with more longevity, where players don't "finish" and stop playing, you eliminate the source of the second hand market. Maybe if you made a solid game that stood the test of time, and kept it updated, people wouldn't want to trade it in. Maybe if you didn't make one good game, then copy it the next year with one or two "adjustments" and sell it a full price again, people wouldn't need to trade it in to buy the new version. Every year.

Maybe.

 

[Brotherofwill]

I don't mind ten dollar... it works and it's not "punishing" pre owned users per se.

How is it not punishing pre-owned customers?

It's DLC outside of the main game. You don't need it, if we believe the statistics most people won't want it.

It's not subtracting from the original game, it's just adding extra incentive.

(Except the sport titles that block online gameplay... that's too far)

Ah ok, I was under the impression that Project 10 Dollars was purely the removal of the online component from sports games, because that's the first time I heard the name.

Adding DLC is fine, but removing the whole online component to a sports game goes as punishment in my book.

 

[Richard Allen]

So you buy all of your cars new right? And every apartment or home that may interest you is brand new, specifically made for you to purchase new right? You don't have to answer me, I know the answer.

The house/apartment comparison is a completely different type of industry. As for the car, you're right, I have only bought used cars thus far in my life. Guess what? I don't go around driving my used car while claiming to be doing Mazda a favor.

Project $10 would be illegal in ever sense of the word if our laws could keep up with the pace of modern technology and development.

Explain to me how this is in any way, shape, or form illegal. This is like saying every late-night infomercial is breaking the law, "but if you call now we'll throw in these steak knives for free!"
"What?! I didn't call then and now I have to buy the steak knife bonus seperately? That's illegal!!"

Please don't tell me that you think it is ok to have features like cruise control or air conditioning enabled only if you buy a car new, the first sale doctrine was made for a reason and eventually I hope to god our laws catch up because this should be straight up illegal... $10 fucking dollars to play multi-player, yea you continue ruining what others have enjoyed for years while not sending publishers out of business buy eating up this shit /end rant

Drop the car analogy, it doesn't make any sense. And no, these things are not illegal when it comes to software becasue something called a END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT exists. Heard of those? They're like these little contracts that dictate how a consumer may use a product. When your Hyundai Sonata comes with a contract saying it is illegal to sell your car start complaining.

It doesn't matter that you don't go around claiming to do mazda a favor, that doesn't give them a right to go do this. It also doesn't matter if its a different industry, if I purchase something new, decide that I don't want this item due to lack of content/quality/what ever the hell I want to sell it for. Let's just apply this to everything why don't you, used clothes, illegal because they come with a tag saying you can't do this. Cars, gone. Computers too, not allowed to sell them because the motherboard has a EULA. And actually, it was ruled illegal when adobe and autocad, tried to sue users of their products (also used under a TOS and EULA)for reselling them. They got their asses firmly handed to them in court. Here's the link if interested. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.ars I suggest you actually learn a little more about the products you buy and how TOS and EULA's work. Just because a company says you can't do something doesn't mean that the TOS or EULA isn't invalid or illegal.

Edit: oh and the reason it would be illegal is the first sale doctrine, read up on it. Short version, "The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy ends once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made." The reason it should be illegal is they are bypassing this by intentionally devaluing a product making it more difficult to sell.

 

[Orekoya]

Well I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the best possible way to get people like me to buy new games would be to lower the prices.

A better way that I'm still surprised the games industry ignores so vigorously is the fact that in the DVD industry to encourage buyers to buy DVDs new and on release is to have a release sale that cuts like 5 bucks off the cost upfront. I'd be more incline to pre-order or get on the release date if I knew it was going to save even 5 bucks over what it'll cost for months to come.

 

[Phoenixlight]

How about just making a policy that meant 5% of the money used to purchase a pre-owned game with went back to the developer? that way everyone's fairly happy.

 

[Matt_LRR]

Used game buyers are game buyers. Period.

1. No. They aren't. Period.

Who the money goes to and in what quantity on any given transaction are entirely irrelevent factors.

2. They are? So all of those publishers and developers didn't go out of business because they didn't have enough money? Why did they go out of business? Not enough moxie?

The fact is that used game trades and sales help to drive new game sales,

3. Is this true? Why would a used-buyer suddenly become a new buyer? Why would you ever voluntarily spend $60 on something you can get for $30?

and provde more people the opportunity to play more games, leading them to become fans of series they otherwise could not afford to have gotten into.

4. While this is true,

A used game buyer is a potential lifetime customer, has increased their buying power on future purchases,

Buying power is meaningless if you don't give your money to the people who actually make the product.

and has committed no illegal or immoral act. Punishing them is unfair and greedy.

5. Not giving someone BONUS material is not punishing them. By this logic any incentive, bonus, gift, or rebate is just another way to screw over someone.

A used market is a product of a healthy industry, and anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong.

6. A healthy retailer industry. You can talk about how "the rising tide lifts all the boats" for as long as you want, but it's still a fact that used-copy money does NOT go to the publishers. That's tantamount to buying an armful of corn from a downtown farmer's market and paying the guy who owns the parkinglot.

*sigh*. One of these.

1. Game buyer. Is a used game still a game? Yes. Did the purchaser of said game exchange money for product as a function of a purchase transaction? Yes. Game. Buyer. Game buyer. To go a little further, does any game buyer buy all their games used? some do, most don't. So, a person who buys any specific game used, is still probably buying new games in general. A customer's a customer, even if they happen to be buying this game used.

2. Most of those developers were closed by the publishers that owned them in an attempt to maximize profit, or to reduce losses in the face of economic contraction; not as a function of used game sales. Developers that were closed were financial liabilities that were not turning around good returns on investment. These lack of returns relate to numerous factors, of which used game sales is probably a contirbutor, but is in no way the sole cause. Other such contributors include weak productuts and IPs, budget overruns, overstaffing, poor product turnaround times, and poor sales in general.

3. Trade programs and promotions through retailers like EB and gamestop -always- promote sales of new games. Trade 3 get it free on new release titles, bonus trade credit on pre-orders, 50% more credit on featured new releases, and so on. Retailers like gamestop run their trade promotions exclusively to drive sales of new release games. These trade promos do not exist on used product. The combined savings on the purchase of used titles, couplesd with the opportunity to maximize returns necessarily direct these buyers towards new product as the chain of transactions progresses. Additionally, someone who picks up a used copy of Gears of War for 9$ may LOVE it, go out and buy GoW 2 right away, and then stand in line for the midnight launch of GoW 3. Used sales facilitate introductions to established franchises with low buy-in, but large potential return in new sales. As stated, a customer is a customer.

4. again, one lost new sale could result in the gain of a lifetime of new sales. Cost/benefit.

5. which is why I didn't specifically invoke PTD in this thread. I simply praised the idea that one should use carrot, rather than stick.

6. No, a healthy industry at large. Products have got to be moving for used product to exist. It's tough to feel sorry for publishers when actual game sales figures continue to increase. More copies are being sold (new) of any game today than would have been sold a decade ago. The problem is not used sales cutting into margins. The problem is that game budgets have become so bloated that the increase in required sales to break even have grown at a rate that outstrips the actual increase in sales. Yes, there is a problem with the industry. No, that problem is not the used market.

-m

 

[DRD 1812]

It doesn't matter that you don't go around claiming to do mazda a favor, that doesn't give them a right to go do this. It also doesn't matter if its a different industry, if I purchase something new, decide that I don't want this item due to lack of content/quality/what ever the hell I want to sell it for. Let's just apply this to everything why don't you, used clothes, illegal because they come with a tag saying you can't do this. Cars, gone. Computers too, not allowed to sell them because the motherboard has a EULA. And actually, it was ruled illegal when adobe and autocad, tried to sue users of their products (also used under a TOS and EULA)for reselling them. They got their asses firmly handed to them in court. Here's the link if interested. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.ars I suggest you actually learn a little more about the products you buy and how TOS and EULA's work. Just because a company says you can't do something doesn't mean that the TOS or EULA isn't invalid or illgal.

The EULA argument is irrelevant anyway. Because what you people are arguing against is publisher incentive. Lets look at it another way, shall we? We'll even use cars.

You go to buy a new Cadillac. Cadillac offers free dealership maintenance for the first five years you own your vehicle as a way of saying "thanks for buying a brand new Caddie." You are being given a bonus for being a loyal customer and paying out the ass for a brand new car.

But! You decide that maybe you don't like your Cadillac after all. So after one year of ownership you decide to sell it. It is now a used car. Someone else buys the car for $5k less than you paid for it. Do you honestly think that Cadillic should provide the remaining four years of maintenance to the person who bought it used?

 

[Lamppenkeyboard]

I buy used if there is actually a significant amount of money saved on my part. Five dollars or so, that isn't really worth buying used. 15 dollars to 20 dollars, I could feed myself.

 

[Brok3n Halo]

The problem with Project $10 is that it is actually three completely different strategies; one using positive reinforcement, a second using negative reinforcement, and a third being a sort of service charge.

The first (positive reinforcement), I wholeheartedly support, that is giving people who buy new extra optional content that isn't required for the core game experience such as bonus avatar items or the first expansion pack for free while offering used game purchasers the option to buy it separately if they want it. Alan Wake is a prime example of this with the first episode of it's expansions free to those who bought the game.

The second (negative reinforcement), the one I really have a problem with, actually cuts content from the game proper requiring anyone wanting the full experience of the game to buy the content if the game is used. I haven't seen it executed yet but I've seen talk of going so far as to cut the last level of the game as Project $10 content, effectively screwing over all used game players and renters. This is just awful and is the source of most the hatred of P10D

The third (Service Fee), I'm a little torn on. This is when the games online mode is locked with a one-time-use code that requires used game player to pay. On one hand this effectively kills rentals. Most the time if you want to play online you're likely to buy the game anyway and is really annoying in a try before you buy sense. However, on the other hand, the player is using company resources to play online, costing them in running and maintaining servers and other such long term investments. It's kinda hard to fault them for charging a player, that effectively never gave them any money previously, a one time $10 charge to use their service. Especially in a world where it's acceptable for MMO companies to charge a recurring $15 a month on top of requiring buying the game new and charging for every expansion pack.

 

[Matt_LRR]

It doesn't matter that you don't go around claiming to do mazda a favor, that doesn't give them a right to go do this. It also doesn't matter if its a different industry, if I purchase something new, decide that I don't want this item due to lack of content/quality/what ever the hell I want to sell it for. Let's just apply this to everything why don't you, used clothes, illegal because they come with a tag saying you can't do this. Cars, gone. Computers too, not allowed to sell them because the motherboard has a EULA. And actually, it was ruled illegal when adobe and autocad, tried to sue users of their products (also used under a TOS and EULA)for reselling them. They got their asses firmly handed to them in court. Here's the link if interested. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.ars I suggest you actually learn a little more about the products you buy and how TOS and EULA's work. Just because a company says you can't do something doesn't mean that the TOS or EULA isn't invalid or illgal.

The EULA argument is irrelevant anyway. Because what you people are arguing against is publisher incentive. Lets look at it another way, shall we? We'll even use cars.

You go to buy a new Cadillac. Cadillac offers free dealership maintenance for the first five years you own your vehicle as a way of saying "thanks for buying a brand new Caddie." You are being given a bonus for being a loyal customer and paying out the ass for a brand new car.

But! You decide that maybe you don't like your Cadillac after all. So after one year of ownership you decide to sell it. It is now a used car. Someone else buys the car for $5k less than you paid for it. Do you honestly think that Cadillic should provide the remaining four years of maintenance to the person who bought it used?

They do, though. Warranties and maintenance packages on cars are transferable to new owners.

-m

 

[oppp7]

Seriously, just make retailers give them part of the money from preowned sales. And problem solved...

 

[SultanP]

More of this... When did it ever become punishment to not give people free stuff? I swear, people won't stop whining about the injustice until the people who buy it used or pirate it get the exact same experience as people who actually paid the company for the game.

Edit:
Also, this seems like a solution on the face of it:

Seriously, just make retailers give them part of the money from preowned sales. And problem solved...

But I don't think you can actually make people do that. Imagine if you had bought some shoes from Nike or something, and you weren't using them. You might have a friend who wants to buy them off of you, but if he did that, you'd have to send some of the money he gives you to Nike. Doesn't make sense, and it'd be the same thing with the games.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

After my first post, I was reminded of something else. This is fairly reminiscent of the home appliance market in the United States; well, actually, any market in the United States.

Companies used to build things to last; refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, etc. My mom still uses my great-grandma's Kirby vacuum. It used to be a credit to your company to say that a customer would only ever buy one product from you and it would last them forever. What was slowly discovered is that if a customer only ever buys it from you once, you never have a repeat sale. Eventually, you run out of potential buyers. The "solution" became one of two things; 1. Create products that are specifically built not to last and must be replaced over time. 2. Create a false need for "new" products with "better" features that can't simply be "added" to old products.

However, they overlooked something else. The second-hand market. If you have a product that will never expire; a customer will never buy another new one. However, if the customer can sell that product to someone else who can't afford a new one, it frees the original customer up to buy new from you.

 

[Richard Allen]

It doesn't matter that you don't go around claiming to do mazda a favor, that doesn't give them a right to go do this. It also doesn't matter if its a different industry, if I purchase something new, decide that I don't want this item due to lack of content/quality/what ever the hell I want to sell it for. Let's just apply this to everything why don't you, used clothes, illegal because they come with a tag saying you can't do this. Cars, gone. Computers too, not allowed to sell them because the motherboard has a EULA. And actually, it was ruled illegal when adobe and autocad, tried to sue users of their products (also used under a TOS and EULA)for reselling them. They got their asses firmly handed to them in court. Here's the link if interested. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.ars I suggest you actually learn a little more about the products you buy and how TOS and EULA's work. Just because a company says you can't do something doesn't mean that the TOS or EULA isn't invalid or illgal.

The EULA argument is irrelevant anyway. Because what you people are arguing against is publisher incentive. Lets look at it another way, shall we? We'll even use cars.

You go to buy a new Cadillac. Cadillac offers free dealership maintenance for the first five years you own your vehicle as a way of saying "thanks for buying a brand new Caddie." You are being given a bonus for being a loyal customer and paying out the ass for a brand new car.

But! You decide that maybe you don't like your Cadillac after all. So after one year of ownership you decide to sell it. It is now a used car. Someone else buys the car for $5k less than you paid for it. Do you honestly think that Cadillic should provide the remaining four years of maintenance to the person who bought it used?

They do, though. Warranties and maintenance packages on cars are transferable to new owners.

-m

You beat me too it, even tho the post in question isn't a matter of support, it's a matter of removing features. Cadillac add features to cars in order to sell them, they can't how ever disable those feature, lets say multi-player, in order to prevent you from re-selling.

 

[RicoADF]

Holy crap - an industry personality that game buyers, even pre-owned buyers are still game buyers.

respect +1.

-m

A pre-owned buyer isn't really a buyer. None of that money goes to the game developers, just the retailers, and considering the relationship between retailers and publishers borders on actively hostile it's practically like funding "the enemy".

I don't understand what Cliffy is getting at with, "more flies with honey than with vinegar..." The free $10 worth of DLC is honey to entice people to buy the game new.

In this response: someone who has bought the industry complaints hook, line, and sinker.

Used game buyers are game buyers. Period. Who the money goes to and in what quantity on any given transaction are entirely irrelevent factors. The fact is that used game trades and sales help to drive new game sales, and provde more people the opportunity to play more games, leading them to become fans of series they otherwise could not afford to have gotten into. A used game buyer is a potential lifetime customer, has increased their buying power on future purchases, and has committed no illegal or immoral act. Punishing them is unfair and greedy.

A used market is a product of a healthy industry, and anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong.

-m

Best way of explaining it I've ever heard. I'm sick of these greedy companies wanting to force people to buy games new at $100-$120 AUD. Not everyone can afford it and tbh most games arn't worth $40, make quality games and I'll pay top dollar. I usually buy my games new but not straight away myself, I wait till the prices drop or theres a sale.

 

[Deacon Cole]

And industry afraid of the secondary market is an industry that deserves to die.

 

[MeowZhuxi]

I actually like the DLC part of project ten dollar, what i don't agree with is removing the multiplayer from sports games unless used buyers pay ten dollars. As a person who buys both used and new games i like that for games that i buy new i can get some small rewards. I thought Mass Effect 2 was project ten dollar done completely right: little pieces of cool, but not game-changing dlc that you could get free with a new copy.