One use Codes for games: For or Against?

[the_green_dragon]

Alrighty, I just wanted to see what people thought of the one time use unlock codes of people buying new.

Personally I'm against it, I think game companies should not get any cash from second hand sales, same as every other item in the world that you can get second hand. If they want more money, make some decent DLC.

Now I hear the "Capitalism, FUCK YEAH" arguement alot, and I suppose the whole point is, if people keep buying it them they will keep doing it, and maybe try and push the boundries a bit too.

I'm fine with capitalism, but the flip side is, as consumers we also have a say. And I say, screw your one time codes. Obviously not everyone agrees with me, so I just wanted to see how many poeple like these codes and who actually hates them like I do.

One last point though, how far will they try and push these codes? What if one day they made one time codes which locked out the final boss battle? Would people complain then? What if 2nd hand games die, then your stuck with every game you've ever bought forever.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

A Quadruple thread post; that has got to be a new record.

OT:It's an outright attack on the right of first sale, and I'm categorically opposed to it. That said, they seem to be doing a good job of convincing gamers that it's somehow a good thing (hint, guys, it's good for the company's bottom line, not for anything that in any way benefits you personally), and I don't see it going away any time soon. I think this is the beginning of the end for the console used market; game companies were able to successfully kill off the PC used market over half a decade ago using very similar tactics, and they're going for the console market now.

 

[legion431]

I'm against it. I don't think the producers or developers should get money from second hand sales. I think they should sell copies for the sake of the one specific person buying it not taking money for the enjoyment of maybe 5 other people.

 

[AppleShrapnel]

Not really for or against it, since I hardly play any console games, but in theory, I like it.

I've seen this argued so much on both sides, and both sides have their merits and fair share of nonsense... way I see it? Only once in that last decade has our household purchased a used game. And only then because we wanted it now, instead of ordering online and waiting. (For the nosy escapists, that game was Bladestorm, for the 360)

Now, I can perfectly understand peoples' need to buy secondhand nowadays, in light of the borked economy, but that initial, shiny shrink-wrapped sale pays the devs and publishers, so can we we, as glorious, all-mighty, wallet wielding consumers, really fault them for basically rewarding that sale with extra stuff?

I think not. /:|

 

[LooK iTz Jinjo]

Well I much rather have simple DLC (Like maps and missions) that you'd otherwise have to pay for anyway given to me for free as opposed to an online pass or DRM. That being said I don't like the path that developers are going down with this.

 

[everythingbeeps]

Don't care. I buy almost all my games new, so this whole thing is a complete non-issue for me.

 

[I.N.producer]

I'd say the developer should get more money from second-hand sales instead of one use codes. Second-hand shops already get your games for dirt cheap, why should they make 400% profit and the developer gets none?

 

[Ruwrak]

I buy it new, I get a code to unlock = I am not bothered.
I buy it for 10? in a few months, there is a code with it = I am not bothered.
If there is no code, I am not bothered. So far the content for a certain game is dissapointing.

 

[Something Amyss]

Do we get more options than "fuck yeah" and "fuck no?"

Because one-time codes aren't all the antichrist.

I'm not praising the whole deal, but there's Cerberus and then there's Catwoman. One's a pretty decent method. And the other was a clusterfuck.

 

[dfphetteplace]

Against. You already got paid for that copy. You don't get to charge again.

 

[LiberalSquirrel]

I am... both for and against, in a way.

I understand the purpose of one-use codes, and I see nothing wrong with rewarding the customers who buy new rather than used.

But...

There's nothing inherently wrong about buying used games, either. It's a free economy, and the used video game market is just like the used market for anything else.

So, as long as the one-use code is a reward for the people who bought it new (say, an bonus boss battle or something that doesn't directly impact the story) and not a punishment for those who bought it used (as in "locking someone out of part of the storyline of single-player mode just because they don't have their code"), then I have no problems with codes. I take it on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Cyrus Hanley]

I'm against it because of Splinter Cell: Conviction.


As you can see, by ordering the limited collector's edition of it, along with a crappily-painted figurine and soundtrack disc, you get four one-use codes to enter into the game to unlock three guns and a multiplayer mode.

Essentially, people who payed for the limited collector's edition only really got a figurine and the soundtrack, the guns and multiplayer mode are already in the game - what you're paying for is a key to unlock them before everybody else.

Now, call me crazy, but if I pay $60 US ($120 AU), I should be able to access content on the disc. I should not have to wait weeks for Ubisoft to say, "Okay, now you can use X." by which point I've probably already lost interest in the game and sold it because it's a gimmicky piece of shit.

You don't buy a meal at a restaurant, sit down to eat it and then get restricted from eating parts of it because the manager says, "Not yet!" while some rich punk two tables away is allowed to chow down on the same meal because he paid a few extra bucks to eat it right away.

TL;DR fuck Ubisoft.

 

[Sectan]

Developers should be giving reasons for people to buy new instead of punishing people for buying used. MAKE YOUR GAME WELL AND PEOPLE WON'T WANT TO SELL IT. FYI I'm not giving up my copy of Left 4 Dead ever. Therefore nobody can buy it used.

 

[windlenot]

I like some of it. When it's something like the what Rock Band has done? I think it makes perfect sense. Get the songs of a game for future use in another game. Makes sense. It's not excluding things, it still has the whole game available, just for those who want the extra content.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I'd say the developer should get more money from second-hand sales instead of one use codes. Second-hand shops already get your games for dirt cheap, why should they make 400% profit and the developer gets none?

Because the shops are willing to buy back your games, while developers and publishers are not. Ergo, since the publisher didn't buy the game back, they have no control over it. Besides, when the game was sold they were promised this: One game for every one sale. That's exactly what has happened. First Sale Doctrine. Look it up, mi amigo.

OT: Against it. Yeah.

 

[barbzilla]

Against

I tend to buy games new, but my girlfriend and I both play them. Why should I have to buy two copies of a game in order to access the online content. Overall this is just a way for the developer to put more money in their pocket off of an already overpriced item.

 

[hazabaza1]

Well, okay.

It's a hassle to type in 25 letters on an Xbox controller.

That sums up how I really feel.

 

[Pandabearparade]

why should they make 400% profit and the developer gets none?

Because, like in -every- other market, the manufacturer only has the right of the first sale. They aren't owed anything when one copy of a game that was bought legally is transferred from one owner to another.

 

[Edager6882]

Make all new games cost $25 or less and I'll be ok with it. But right now, $60 a game is horrendously expensive. If I bought all my games new, I'd be paying over $3000 a year for my hobby.