Jimquisition: Fighting The 'Problem' Of Used Games

[ryo02]

what happened to the days when you bought a game you bought the whole thing and owned it. and IF you sold it you were able to sell the whole thing becuase it was yours do to with as you please.

once a game is bought keep your grubby hands off it.

and please PLEASE test your games half the games out there are buggy as all hell but still mannage to release on time since they can allways patch it later -_- no you didnt finnish it you sold a faulty product.

I shouldnt need a code AT ALL if I just put money down for it that should be all the code you need for the entire single player experiance.

 

[pluizig]

This is very much a matter of perspective. I NEVER play ANY multiplayer, ever, so Rage's Day 1 DLC is much more of a problem for me than Dead Space 2's locked-away optional mode.

 

[RedHighwind07]

I always buy used games, it's hard when you've got a car and uni and the other half to worry about paying for. Besides, what's the point of paying $110 for a game thats only 6 hours long, like, oh say.. MW2 and probably MW3. And anyone who brings up the question of Multiplayer can forget about it because i'm using crappy internet. Also, the recent use of FFIX music is freakin awesome.

 

[Doom972]

Locked single player content = Good?
Locked multiplayer = Bad?

It seems the same to me.
Publishers seem to solve the issue with PC games by making them Steam exclusive to prevent a game from being resold. They seem to do it with titles that are expected to sell well anyway (Duke Nukem Forever, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Skyrim).
I guess that eventually, as always, the console games will follow in the PC's footsteps.
I really don't mind that method since I Steam sales are way cheaper than Gamestop's used games.

 

[Iron Mal]

are you stupid?
or did you just awake from a 2 year coma?

Where am I? What year is this? Who's the President?

what you just explained is only hair splitting

Or it is unless you actually paid attention to the video and followed the arguement he was giving.

just look at how consumers view dlc
they don't see it as something "extra"
they see it as something that was taken out of the game and feel ripped off just because they paid 5 dollars less for their game

This has more to do with the nature of the DLC in question, Resident Evil 5's Versus Mode recieved well deserved flak around the time of it's release because it was stuff that was literally already on the disc, it in effect wasn't actually DLC at all so much as stuff that I'd already bought and that they were demanding that I pay for a second time to be able to actualy use (that's like buying a music CD and being forced to fork over an extra £10 to the artists before you can listen to half of the songs on the disc).

Look at DLC like the bonus missions in Mass Effect or Borderlands, both of those had several hours of gameplay added and had DLC that lengthened the experience with fresh new environments and scenarios for you to experience and enjoy.

Hell, even the Call of Duty map packs function like this when we're being honest about them and not just ranting like children because they have the audacity to ask us for money for something they took the time and effort to create for us. They're completely optional, add more maps for players who've gotten bored of the same old ones popping up again and again and mix up the experience a bit by providing more environments and scenarios for players to have to adapt and play around (in essence, adding more time and depth to the multiplayer).

We all have a problem with DLC that tries to sell us stuff that's already ours by virtue of us having already paid for it along with the rest of the game (and rightfully so) but only whiney, petchulant man-children have a problem with all DLC because they feel like 'the devs ripped me off'.

The line between what is a rip off and what is a worthy investment can get pretty blurry but I agree with Jim's overall rationale of side content and extra missions/areas being acceptable things to make into DLC.

same thing with your proposed "rewards"
used buyers will complain that the game is not complete and the evil publishers have locked away content from them just because they didn't pay more for the game

This arguement doesn't really hold up when you compare it to the model that a lot of DLC is based on (that being expansion packs for the PC, yep, DLC is technically older than you think).

Would you argue that a cave or quest that is locked away from you unfairly because you didn't pay out not just full whack for the game but also extra for the expansion pack as well?

If so then congratulations, you have entitlement issues!

Say that, for example, in Mass Effect there was an extra star system that had a handful of extra side quests in it as well as a place where you could buy unique armour and weapons not avalible anywhere else in the game but you needed to get the 'Galaxy of Terror' (I know that name is terrible so give me a break, I'm feeling sick and haven't slept much) DLC (or expansion if we were dealing with the pre-DLC environment), would this be a rip-off?

This isn't a vital area in the game, all of the missions here are purely optional (like every side quest in Mass Effect) and all of the weapons, armour and upgrades in Mass Effect are still good and are more than good enough to get you through the game (even on the highest difficulty setting) so it's hard to try and justify the case for you having 'a major portion of the game you already bought sold back to you' because, at the end of the day, it's bonus content that you don't need and are being offered if you want it.

also it is very subjective what is only a tiny fraction or a big part of a game that's been taken away

No it isn't, it's actually very easy to determine what a small or insignificant portion of the game is.

i couldn't care less if i wouldn't have an online mode but i would be pissed off if they were taking something out of my single player experience

And here's where your arguement breaks down just like everyone else who's made this point before or ever will make this arguement in the future.

Multiplayer is not DLC, it isn't an extra side quest or a piece of bonus in-game equipment.

It's an entire bloody game mode, it is a fairly large chunk of the game's functionality and at least half of the game's experience as a whole (note that this is regardless of whether you happen to give a damn about it or not).

If a small side quest or dungeon in a game was deleted from the game after release because the devs didn't like it then I bet that most people would probably just be a bit confused at first but ultimately not bothered (it's just a little side quest that ultimately doesn't change a whole lot, nice but not really significant on it's own).

If the entire game's multiplayer was deleted because the devs didn't like it then I can guarantee you that more than a few people in the fan base of the game would be quite angry or confused (if not outright abandoning the game if it's a multiplayer oriented title) and with good reason.

taking away online modes is the only reasonable way to implement such passes
because players actively cost the publisher money when they play on their servers
it's only fair that they pay for it

Perhaps a better way of dealing with the costs of having games play online is to not have so many games try to shoehorn in multiplayer where it isn't needed (Bioshock 2, I'm looking at you), if a game's multiplayer is good enough then I guarentee you that more than enough people would not only play it but would be more than happy to buy all the map packs you could offer because they'd want to play more of it.

Trying to squeeze money out of new players for having the audacity to try the online mode (something that is at least half of the game they fairly purchased) is not just unnessercary and unfair, but also pretty disrespectful towards players as well.

I'm guessing you don't really care about that part, I'm picking up a vibe from you that you're of the 'single player only' persuasion (no problem with that, I love single player games too) but just because you don't care about the multiplayer portion of games (and seeing as this is an online forum I wouldn't be too suprised if you also looked down on people who enjoyed multiplayer too, please prove me wrong on that premonition) doesn't mean that it's any less of a bad thing when stupid restrictions and locks are placed up around it, it's even a bad thing for you in the long run.

Who's to say how long it will be until someone gets the bright idea of trying to impliment a pass to progress past a certain point in the single player campaign or to play as a certain class in an RPG?

 

[Something Amyss]

It isn't ethical to train your employees to act like dicks if the customer's initial request is for a purchase that doesn't maximize the store's profit.

It isn't. But that's not what they do, so that's kind of a moot point.

 

[TheDooD]

Part of the problem with minor unlockable content jim is how disposable games have become to people. This is something that is largely generated by game companies that feel they have little reason to offer hundreds of hours of gameplay plus replayvalue in one game for your 60 when they can try and queeze multiple $60, 10 hour distractions, but then the turnaround became problematic hence the market gets all the blame. People that just want to beat it and sell it won't be detered from doing so be anything non major, and may even sell unused codes for the items with the game (it's happened to me). Common senese ideas like making the game worth the $60 new hit the wall of a business trying to sell in volume not quality. I know it sounds dumb, but games aren't movies: people won't buy the game a second time for being that good, while they'll see something in the theatre multiple times if they feel it's good enough.

Encouraging keeping one's games through various methods has been my prefered idea. How many people will play through the whole Mass Effect Trilogy to see various paths taken based on various choices in the past games? Another decent example would be the pacing of Dragon Age's DLC. It wasn't a quick batch of characters and Maps in the first 3 months then off to make the sequal. It was paced for a longer haul, and frankly, isn't that the best use of DLC: not to sell us things what were once unlockables, but to keep the game going months or even years after purchase, avoiding the need for cheap, more of the same sequals.

Then there's always some hope of trying to promote game collecting. Maybe just a poster of Suikoden 2 with the caption "if you sold this to gamestop for $5 credit you made a big mistake".

I like your concept, hell I also think that companies that ***** and moan about there games being spun unto the used market should take this advice. They should keep making content so it'll keep players playing more new players buying the game and holding unto it. Keep adding major DLC every two months or so and minor DLC like weapons, outfits, character models etc like every month. Something to having the gamer think that I should hold unto this game it could be pretty badass for all parties. Also they should allow players that buy it used that like said game buy the DLC in bundles. Like after 4 months somebody picks it up for like 30$ they're able to DL like 2 major DLC's and like 3 minors for like 15-20$. Development teams these days need a team that works on a sequel and another team that just works on DLC to keep the current game alive and tying into the upcoming sequel. It's ironic this seems hard for the publishers that ***** and moan about they're losing money. If they got this into their minds that their customers, IP's, development teams are more then just a quick pay day they wouldn't have anything to ***** about.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

But... Alright, hang on a second. I don't get this. How is it that Locked Away Content A is being taken away from used buyers, but Locked Away Content B is being rewarded to new buyers?

Some people are just vulnerable to suggestion.

Also, Jim seems to be unaware that, if games aren't making enough money, it's not just executives who don't get bonuses. Entire studios get closed, putting people out of work.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

What on earth was the cat game? I want it!

It's Super Genius Man-Cat Professor Genki's Hyper Ordinary Pre-Order Pack and it comes free with with pre-ordered copies of Saints Row 3. Here's the full trailer:

 

[random_bars]

Alright, lots of people have replied to my comment by saying that the difference between these two alternatives is that the multiplayer is a big component of a game, while the sewers in Rage are a much smaller piece of content. I see your point on that. What I still don't understand, though, is why Jim phrases them as two entirely different things: one being a part of the game that is locked away from used buyers, and the other being an extra thing that is gifted to new players.

What exactly makes sewers an optional extra but multiplayer integral? You don't have to play/experience either of them. There's nothing stopping you from completely ignoring a game's multiplayer (and indeed many do), just as a used buyer of Rage can ignore the sewers. And more importantly, they're both parts of the game, coded onto the disc, which are restricted from the player unless they buy the game new, or pay extra for them if bought used. The size of each content is the only difference - in terms of what they are conceptually, they are absolutely identical.

So again, why does Jim, and why does pretty much everyone who replied to me, consider a game without multiplayer to be 60% of a game, but a game without sewers to be 100% of a game but without an extra 10% that might be given as a gift? Surely they're either one or the other. I would be totally fine if he was saying that games where a small amount of content is restricted from used buyers, instead of a large amount, are better; equally I would be fine with him saying that games which only give a small bonus to new buyers, rather than a large one, are better.

But it's the way he treats the size of the relevant content as the deciding factor that controls whether said content is restricted or rewarded that baffles me.

 

[Phoenix Arrow]

Here's what I reckon.
If a company wants to combat used games, they've got to try and win over people who would buy used games. They have to competitive with their pricing and they've got to be more convenient.
How this for an idea. A month after the launch of a game, release the game on XBLA or the PSN. Charge more or less the same as that game would get used.

You don't get the box which is important to some people, but you also don't have to go to the shops. Not to mention you probably cut a deal to get it advertised.

It all comes down to carrot vs. stick. The easiest carrot to offer is convenience.

 

[geizr]

The big problem with the used game market isn't so much the concept of used games and used game sales; it's the crookedness of major used game retailers like Gamestop(and let's be honest, Gamestop has bought out pretty much the entire used game retail business).

Gamestop has built its entire empire from used game sales. They do everything in their power to direct you to buy a used game rather than a new game. However, from what I've seen, their used games generally aren't discounted that much from their new game stock, but, if you try to trade a title back to them, they'll give you so very little credit on the trade. From what I've been able to discern, Gamestop makes anywhere from $20-50 off each trade and sale of a used game, and, as others have noted, apparently not one penny of the sale is shared with the original publisher/developer of the game.

The scenario goes something like this: a customer buys a new game for $60. Plays the game and decides he doesn't like it. Takes the game to Gamestop for trade. Gamestop gives him $5-$10 for the trade and then resales the game for $55-$58, making an unshared revenue of $45-53. Gamestop does this for each trade and sale of the game as long as the new retail price is still near $60 and the game is reasonably popular.

This multiplicity gives Gamestop unprecedented revenue from game sales that they do not have to share, so it's little wonder the publishers are upset. But, it's also, in my opinion, disingenuous to the customer because the customer is not really seeing a substantial discounting on the purchase unless he already has some credit built up, and that credit is used up over time due to the difference between purchase price and trade-in value. The customer is only seeing a $5-15 discounting from the price of a new game(assuming he only purchases games if he has at least one trade-in), which means one extra game only every 4 months, at best. Further, as the gamer develops a collection of games he'd rather keep than trade, he will be forced to eventually buy a game new or at Gamestop's top used price, further dwindling any overall discounting off game purchases. At best, he will tend toward an average of $2-5 off the purchase of every game in his collection, so if he has 10 games, he will tend toward a discounting of $20-50 off his entire collection, which may cost him, on average $450-600 before discounting(basically, a meager 5-10% discount). If the gamer has the idea to always recycle his games through trade-ins rather than permanently keep any, then he eliminates any discounting because he is effectively paying an extremely high rental fee($30-$50 per game per cycle). In essence, he will have repurchased his collection multiple times.

While it can not be expected for the gamer to come out ahead, or even to break even(after all, we're at the bottom of the pyramid), I just don't see the gamer really obtaining that much a reduction buying used over buying new because of the significant disparity between the trade-in value and the used sale price and the fact the used sale price, at least from Gamestop, is often on close parity with the new sale price. Jim's idea of publishers just not charging so bloody much for the game in the first place would be one way to mitigate the issue. This does neglect any cost/profit requirements and disparity suffered by the publisher, but, as customers, that's really not our problem; the publisher needs to manage his own cost issues such to be able to produce a product customers are willing to buy at a price they are willing to pay.

Don't get me wrong; I think used games are a great idea and a marvelous way to help gamers not have to bank-roll a mortgage just to be a gamer. However, the way the used game market is currently implemented by the major used games chains is, in my opinion, simply disingenuous to both gamers and publishers, alike. Honestly, I think there would be less problem if the used games retailers were willing to share at least some revenue with the publishers and provide more than a marginal discount on the price of used game compared to new games.


As for the problems with publishers and the crap they pull when selling their games, I mostly see that problem with AAA titles. Honestly, I've completely given up on AAA titles. The only thing AAA titles have to offer is flashier graphics and higher cost, nothing more. The stories are trite, the characters are shallow, and the game design is often just blind rehash or copy-paste. In fact, some of these games are built more like a child's Busy Center, just a juxtaposition of various features and activities with no coherency or cohesion among them. They fail, miserably, to create a singular, coherent experience because the parts don't work together; they just flashily compete for the gamer's attention, as if the gamer is no more mentally developed than a 2-year-old(although, sometimes it seems there are a number of gamers who are exactly like that).

Gamer's have a choice in these matters, stop buying from publishers that punish customers and sell overpriced garbage games, and stop buying from retail outlets that do nothing but leech off the industry. This does leave fewer options and requires more work on the part of the gamer when looking for a new game, but, no change will occur until gamers finally take the one singular action that gives them the greatest power over all this crap, stop buying it. This is because companies only hear and understand two sounds, the creak of your wallet opening and the slap of your wallet closing.

 

[Orekoya]

Alright, lots of people have replied to my comment by saying that the difference between these two alternatives is that the multiplayer is a big component of a game, while the sewers in Rage are a much smaller piece of content. I see your point on that. What I still don't understand, though, is why Jim phrases them as two entirely different things: one being a part of the game that is locked away from used buyers, and the other being an extra thing that is gifted to new players.

What exactly makes sewers an optional extra but multiplayer integral? You don't have to play/experience either of them. There's nothing stopping you from completely ignoring a game's multiplayer (and indeed many do), just as a used buyer of Rage can ignore the sewers. And more importantly, they're both parts of the game, coded onto the disc, which are restricted from the player unless they buy the game new, or pay extra for them if bought used. The size of each content is the only difference - in terms of what they are conceptually, they are absolutely identical.

So again, why does Jim, and why does pretty much everyone who replied to me, consider a game without multiplayer to be 60% of a game, but a game without sewers to be 100% of a game but without an extra 10% that might be given as a gift? Surely they're either one or the other. I would be totally fine if he was saying that games where a small amount of content is restricted from used buyers, instead of a large amount, are better; equally I would be fine with him saying that games which only give a small bonus to new buyers, rather than a large one, are better.

But it's the way he treats the size of the relevant content as the deciding factor that controls whether said content is restricted or rewarded that baffles me.

Because for many gamers the multiplayer experience is more important. That's... subjective but that's also why many games can get higher scores than their single player campaign warrants. The sewer section in particular is similar enough to something you could find in any type of dlc however essentially making it a free dlc thus making it an more of a treat for the new gamers than punishment to used gamers.

Frankly more game publishers need to include more stuff like that, right now beyond the pre-order bonus there is essentially no reason to ever be an early adopter but plenty of reasons not to be. When Oblivion came out it was 60 dollars for just the game and the dlc was roughly 10 bucks a piece. A year later the goty edition came out including all the dlc for free and at a lesser price. Many people would say stop being early adopters but here's the facts: the sales of the first two months are usually what makes or breaks a game (and their developers), aka the sales to early adopters, and yet they almost always do nothing to incentivise this.

 

[veloper]

I don't see a difference between giving free DLC only to new buyers and not giving some DLC to used buyers.

Online play isn't DLC.

What's the difference between taking a part of a game and calling it DLC or making a slightly smaller game and adding DLC? Would we even know?

Online play isn't DLC.

I can see the value of not putting the DLC right at the beginning and allowing players to put in the code at any time in the game, but I don't see why the bonus has to be small and insignificant.
More appreciation for the loyal fans paying full-price is a bigger bonus?

Online play isn't DLC.

No, Jim was railing against both online passes AND offline DLC, except his own 'version'.

 

[panosbouk]

As I see it, it's not only bad for used sales, not including content that already is there, but if I want to lent a game to a friend why he should not get the entire game, or online play? They just want to make more money that they are getting already.

And btw it is hard to believe that they lost 1m dollars from used games. With all that digital downloads still paying the full price? They don't have to pay for the cost of making, packaging and shipping game discs to stores, Returns, since they are digital data sitting there to be downloaded, and the Retailer I don't think gets the same amount as a regular shop. So that leaves with the Publisher and Platform Royalty.

 

[ultimateownage]

Publishers still fuck this up though. Look at all of those costumes in Batman. You can't get a pack with all of them, and they are going to sell them later. Same happened in Fallout New Vegas.

I do agree with you though. There needs to be more positive competition rather than the negative 'fuck you' kind of competition.

 

[lord.jeff]

No more appeals to the poor developers, I've had enough.

This has gotten out of control. The developers work for the publishers, they are one in the same and your sympathy for the developers has been used against you. The developers aren't your friends, they are employees of the "greedy" publishers. You can't separate the two so sympathy for one is sympathy for both.

How are they the same, in most cases developers and publishers are two completely different companies, that have two very different goals?


I always thought that a good incentive for buying new would be free DLC dollars to spend on that game, costumers feel a reason to buy new, nothing is locked out(if the DLC is done right) and some costumers may even buy extra DLC if they feel the value of the things they bought with the free bucks was worth it.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

When they add new skins or weapons when you buy new, im happy with that. But when they lock off part off the game thats on the disc already then thats wrong. An if you do that then make your game cheaper and then let people pay extra to unlock online multiplayer.

I rarely by used games as its cheaper just to rent from a shop. Most games i dont keep for more than a week anyway and i have no interest in online gaming. So games i would buy would be rpgs or games i will replay like Mass Effect, Fallout, Skyrim, Batman, Saints Row. Everything else i rent. Complete and give back.

 

[Epona]

No more appeals to the poor developers, I've had enough.

This has gotten out of control. The developers work for the publishers, they are one in the same and your sympathy for the developers has been used against you. The developers aren't your friends, they are employees of the "greedy" publishers. You can't separate the two so sympathy for one is sympathy for both.

How are they the same, in most cases developers and publishers are two completely different companies, that have two very different goals?


I always thought that a good incentive for buying new would be free DLC dollars to spend on that game, costumers feel a reason to buy new, nothing is locked out(if the DLC is done right) and some costumers may even buy extra DLC if they feel the value of the things they bought with the free bucks was worth it.

How are they not the same. The publisher has alot of a say in how a game is developed. The publisher is paying for it (like how you can order your cheeseburger without onions because you are paying for it). You cannot buy a game to support Bioware without giving most of that money to EA.

It's ok though, keep throwing your money at publishers you hate to support the developers. Don't let the facts get in the way.