Cliff Bleszinski: Don't Punish Pre-Owned Buyers

[Woodsey]

I don't think they are punishing people that buy second-hand, they're just providing an incentive for the people that buy it fresh off the shelf.

As long as it doesn't get silly with what they're leaving out that's fine. Take Alan Wake, they give you a free episode that takes place after the game has finished, meaning the story proper can wrap up for those that don't want the DLC.

 

[Chicago Ted]

I'm of the belief that anyone who considers themselves a gamer has a responsibility to buy games new. Now, its one thing to buy a 20 year old NES game off ebay but to buy a game used 3 days after release for $5 less than new at Gamestop is a disservice to the people that made it.

Except that by saving 5 bucks I can buy dinner for the night too. Sure you can say that everyone has a responsibility to buy new. I say the game companies have the responsibility not to try and fuck me. Which companies like EA are doing

That's a horrible excuse. If you need, absolutely NEED, that $5 to afford dinner that evening, you have much better things to spend your money on then a $60-$70 game. If you can afford it without scraping all your pennies together, I truely don't think that $5 is going to matter much in the long run for you. Who it'll matter for though is the people making the games so they can continue to stay in business.

 

[Doug]

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.

This, pretty much - 1 is great, 2 is bad, 3 is questionnable. Nice round up matey.

I don't see why the GoW guy is saying this though as a) most of PTD has been of type (1), with only the online part of the EA sports games being (3), and b) Epic games spent more than alittle time and effort punishing their customers on PC with DRM, and generally belittled and horsewhipped the market.

 

[Megacherv]

Free avatar items, themes and gamer pics would probably do it. Small, meaningless incentives that would otherwise cost the gamer a small amount of cash.

I honestly think it would work, people like small pointless free things.

I like that, it's the Valve way of doing things as Shamus Young said

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I think it's perfectly fair to say Gamestop screws everyone with their ridiculous markups on pre-owned games, but I disagree completely with people who suggest used games sales are inherently bad. If I buy a game, do I own it? That's debatable. But do I own a license to play that game? Absolutely. And if I tire of that game or find myself in need of quick cash, do I have the right to privately transfer that license to another person in exchange for payment? Hell yes I do. If you want to suggest I don't, you're sorta flying in the face of our basic human nature to barter and trade.

I know corporations would love to somehow force all of us to buy everything individually, as sharing and reselling obviously bites into their revenue stream. But here's the thing: I don't give a flying fuck about corporations. If they're going to start challenging long-held human traditions and customs to that extent, I'm not at all opposed to a goddamn uprising.

Jesus H. Christ, do I hate big business.

 

[GonzoGamer]

He makes a good point:
Console gamers just want to put in the game and play it. That's why they have a console rather than a PC.

I used to buy used because that's what I could afford. I buy new now because I can afford it but I kind of feel bad for anyone who's in that same boat now. It's hard to find a good deal on a used game now because gameslop has gouged all the prices (ebay used to be a treasure trove of great game deals) and the publishers are looking for any way to screw the used buyer.

 

[Sovvolf]

I'll probably get a lot of flack for this but... I like project ten dollar. I get to feel rewarded for purchasing the game brand new. Now I'm not saying this as a fellow who can always afford brand new games... I'm not. I'm a student, the only income I get is from babysitting for my brother or working as a temp at the local garage once in a blue moon (I get £10 a week at the most from babysitting). I only purchase the full price versions of the games I like. With project ten dollar, when I go out of my way to get the new full retail version, I don't just get a shiny box and that instruction manual smell... I also get free DLC provided for me.

There may be game I don't like that also do this... I'll just get the pre-owned version... I'm not all that interested in the game to pay the full price for it. Now if that game wins me over... I'll fork out the extra £10 and get the extra stuff, if not... Then what do I give a shit about the DLC for?.

 

[Therumancer]

I simply think the industry should stop whining about the used game trade which has been around for ages.

Simply put it's a matter of an industry that is making ungodly amounts of money (billions) assuming that without the competition they could make even more money. It's not like they are suddenly losing anything, as used games have been part of the equasion for a long time.

As far as the issue of single player games goes, well I think one of the big problems comes down to content. To an extent multiplayer which allows a lot of content to be recycled is a cop out, as it's relatively cheap to produce, and that's why it's becoming such a focus of the industry and why there are so many games with pretty lame single player content since it's become the "extra gimmick" more than the multiplayer being the additional aspect.

For what people are paying for games, it's not out of hand to expect to get dozens or even hundreds of hours of enjoyment out of them. Some games like "Oblivion" and "Fallout 3" have shown that this is possible. This makes games that provide only a dozen (or less) hours of single player content less competitive, since someone really can rent those games and play through them pretty quickly. The point being that the amount of content (irregardless of arguements about quality) is not worth the price tag.

What's more when I look at some relatively short games nowadays like "Alan Wake" and the like, it occurs to me in this case a lot of it happens from cutting corners (they decided not to spend what it was going to take to make it a sandbox game, and I believe paid the price for it), and also by putting as much, if not more focus into advertising than into the game itself. "Modern Warfare 2" for example had an advertising budget equal to it's development budget.

At any rate, look at the live-action "Alan Wake" promotional videos, and some of the extensive marketing campaigns (viral and otherwise) that a number of games have received. Consider now how things might have changed if they say fed a good part of the money spent on promotional gimmicks back into games like "Alan Wake" or "Dante's Inferno".

Right now I can't see a valid reason why I shouldn't be able to get 40 hours per playthrough out of a $60 game. It's been proven that it can be done at a high quality level, because it has been done.

I think the "meh I'll rent it" response is something that is hitting a lot of short and low quality games. What's more I think the standards for defining something as a "AAA" title are seriously lapsing. It seems like nearly everything out there is being presented as one as part of marketing, yet half the time a lot of them seem like paper tigers where more effort was made into making them seem cool than was invested in making then actually cool, and worthwhile investments.

 

[Need MOAR APPLES]

A Free Lancer avatar item would be nice! Or maybe Burst Hammer or a grenade?

 

[Conkzerton]

I buy pre-owned games. I also shop in charity shops sometimes, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone. The reason I buy pre-owned is that I simply can't afford to pay full price. While I want to support an industry that gives a quality, entertaining product, I'd like to have more than a game every year, thanks.
I would imagine if the pre-owned market wasn't around, there'd be a hell of a lot of waste. Games people get fed up of sit on shelves, or maybe in the bin. A game that is sold on stays in use, stays in circulation, reaches a new customer who gets to enjoy it.
I'll pay full price when I can, because I really like gaming. On birthdays and the like I'll ask for games, so money goes where it should.
I'm fairly OK with not getting free content pre-owned. I payed less, I don't get the premiums. Fine, but I still payed someone.
I'm a game buyer. I'm a gamer. I just can't afford full price!

 

[Antari]

Yes they have every right to be scared of older software that was written better, produced better, ran better than the junk they expect us to pay for these days. It would be nice if they'd see the big picture for once.

 

[Tom Phoenix]

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

The ironic thing is that this was never a problem before. Used games sales have existed as long as gaming in general has, yet only now do we have companies complaining that it's hurting their sales. If that is the case, how come it wasn't hurting them 5, 10 years ago? And if it actually did, why only bring it up now?

Also, while I generally perfer to buy a new copy as opposed to a used one (simply beacuse you can be more certain of the state of the former), in case of older consoles, you sometimes have little choice then to buy used (assuming you are lucky enough to actually find someone selling it at an affordable price). Since not all games are graced with a remake or rerelease, you preety much have no way of contributing to the original creator even if you wanted to.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

Cliffy B for the win once more

 

[poiuppx]

*sigh* What amazes me is the number of folks who still don't get this. Trying to penalize or criminalize the secondary market is idiotic on countless levels.

My own library is about 35% games I bought new, 65% games I got used. And a good number of those purchases used led to purchases new; case in point, buying a used copy of Guilty Gear X eventually led to me buying BlazBlue's collectors edition on launch day. I know for a fact most gamers need to be mindful with their dollars, and a lot of the ones I know prefer saving the bigger bills for a game they can trust, while being willing to spare a couple bucks here and there to get older used games. It's logical use of your funds, and at the end of the day gaining that interest in a company through their older titles can lead to being willing to shell out more for a new game at launch.

Now, that said, the whole EA Ten Dollar thing... makes sense to me. It really does. It draws a line in the sand, saying 'You can choose to buy used, and in doing so if you want X, then pay us 10$ more down the line so we're still making money from used sales. If you don't then just go for it. If you buy new, then there's no problem, since we're bundling the cost in for you.' Now, some would call this dishonest. I'd call it plain old logical. Publishers have no power ultimately over the secondary market; the above mentioned doctrine of first sale kicks that idea in the head squarely. What they CAN have control over is the DLC. They can make it an attractive element of their overall market strategy, and profit directly or indirectly from it. If Cliffy B can come up with a better idea, more power to him, but for now this seems to me a sound way to both increase new sales and maintain a margin of profit re: those who buy the game used.

And as a side note, to those who basically say buying used is equivalent to ripping off the publishers, allow me to toss this thought out into the ether. I picked up Saint's Row 2 used when it was only about 18$. I loved it, almost viciously. When Volition came out with Red Faction: Guerrilla, I picked it up new because I had good reason to trust their game making abilities. Volition, at least until/if they make a really horrid game, has a fan in me, one willing to buy their products new because their products proved to me the studio is worth taking the risk. Now, would those of you arguing against all forms of used sales say it was wrong of me to do this? That if I hadn't gotten Saint's Row 2 when it was available new, I never should have bought it, even knowing that in doing so you'd be denying Volition a permanent fan and customer down the road?

 

[Undead_David]

Cliff Bleszinski: Don't Punish Pre-Owned Buyers

Epic Games frontman Cliff Bleszinski thinks that the industry is rightly "scared" of used game sales - but that punishing the people who buy them isn't the way to go.

In case you haven't noticed, the pre-owned game trade has become a bit of a hot topic in the industry lately. Publishers and developers see no money from used game sales, but retailers like GameStop that encourage it defend the practice, saying that it lets consumers purchase more games.

One increasingly-common solution is EA's "Project Ten Dollar" approach, which gives people who buy new games free DLC that otherwise must be purchased for about $10. It encourages people to buy the game new, and lets the publisher get some money even from pre-owned buyers - and similar plans have been adopted (or considered) by Sega [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/98808-EA-Sports-Jumping-On-Project-Ten-Dollar-Bandwagon].

But in an interview with Joystiq about Gears of War 3 [http://www.joystiq.com/2010/06/22/cliff-bleszinski-gears-of-war-3-interview/], Epic Games headliner Cliff(y B)leszinski said that he and his company weren't sure if they necessarily wanted to follow suit with taking things away from the people who bought the game pre-owned.

"We want to find ways to positively incentivize first-time buyers to pick up the game new. Penalizing is not the best way to deal with things like that. You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar," said Bleszinski.

That doesn't mean that he's unsympathetic to the problem of other developers, though. "[The industry] is nervous, right? It's very scared about used game sales." Gears is renowned for its multiplayer experience, but Bleszinski acknowledged that other genres carried additional risks. "I wouldn't want to make a horror game right now - that's only single-player - because a lot of players are like, 'I rented it.'"

"You want to make a game that has a great single-player experience, but continues online, continues to breath." But, on the other hand, punching in a 15-digit code every time you get a new game gets old, he said. "I put the game in and just ignore the code. It could be like free beer for life and I'd be like 'whatever.' So there's got to be other ways to do it. We'll see."

I dunno, Cliffy. If it were free beer for life, I think I'd go through the trouble, personally.

Free beer aside, the man has a point, and I think lots of gamers would agree that punishing pre-owned buyers doesn't feel right. But the trouble is, how do you do that without DLC codes and the like?

(Joystiq [http://www.joystiq.com/2010/06/22/cliff-bleszinski-gears-of-war-3-interview/])

Permalink

how is anyone getting punished if the DLC, which people would have to pay for anyways prior to Project $10, is given as a gift for buying it at retail prices. I mean how are gamers being hurt for still having to pay for something they would have to normally? This just sounds like whinning that they arent going to get as much as those who PAY MORE

 

[pyrus7]

I find that the comparison of Project$10 and buying used games to buying a used car is appropriate.

Other than the physical condition of the CD, a typical used game has the exact same functionality of new game; whether you buy new or used you still get the same experience. With Project$10 now, a used game does not have the same functionality of a brand new game. To have the same gaming experience you need to pay extra.

Similarly, a used car will not have the same performance of a brand new car. The brakes will be worn out, engine will need tuning, etc. In order to have the same driving experience as a brand new car, you will need to pay for maintenance to restore it to prime condition (or pay for it earlier than you would if you bought new).

 

[Lionsfan]

That's a horrible excuse. If you need, absolutely NEED, that $5 to afford dinner that evening, you have much better things to spend your money on then a $60-$70 game. If you can afford it without scraping all your pennies together, I truely don't think that $5 is going to matter much in the long run for you. Who it'll matter for though is the people making the games so they can continue to stay in business.

However horrible you think my reasoning is, saving money always helps. And 5 bucks won't make a difference to companies who are earning million dollar profits

 

[The Austin]

Oh, Cliffy, I really do love you.

 

[Billion Backs]

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.

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. 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. 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

You're forgetting the fact that cars aren't usually considered "intellectual property" while games are. That's a big difference. When you buy a car, you buy a physical copy which you then own fully. When you buy a game, you only buy the equivalent of a pass. Sure, you can play it. But the game doesn't belong to you.

It's like buying a ticket to the movies, and then managing to pass it on to the next person after watching the movie (which is generally impossible given how movie tickets have parts that get torn off exactly for that purpose). See the difference?

A game doesn't give you ownership of it's content. It gives you the (usually permanent) "ticket" to see said content. A car, on the other hand, is something you own fully and can do whatever you want with it.

 

[Chicago Ted]

That's a horrible excuse. If you need, absolutely NEED, that $5 to afford dinner that evening, you have much better things to spend your money on then a $60-$70 game. If you can afford it without scraping all your pennies together, I truely don't think that $5 is going to matter much in the long run for you. Who it'll matter for though is the people making the games so they can continue to stay in business.

However horrible you think my reasoning is, saving money always helps. And 5 bucks won't make a difference to companies who are earning million dollar profits

That $5 will, you know why? Because of the other $65 is going towards the retailer, the people mearely selling the game, and none, NONE, of it to the people who have made the game. Combine that with the percentage of people who buy used instead of new, and yes, you do have a massive difference.