THQ: UFC 2010 "Confirmed Our Suspicions" About Pre-Owned Games

[poiuppx]

On the one hand, this is the most rational and level-headed sentiment I've seen to explain why a developer would charge for online. On the other hand, I will never- EVER -pay a fee for online play for a single non-MMO console game, even if it is a one-time fee. No non-MMO game is going to bring with itself enough value to make the expenditure worth it, especially when this isn't an industry standard and I can still pick other games from other companies that provide online play for free.

Besides, year-based sports or sports entertainment games have a depressingly short shelf life when all is said and done. Why shell out an extra fiver for online play when, by the time you get it used, you probably can't even USE the online play for better than a year before it becomes as depopulated as the moon?

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

EA can Suck a lot sometimes... that's what monopoly is all about, impose your will on others and control it all.

 

[midpipps]

So at what point in that article does it benefit the consumer?

Working hard to make sure publishers and retailers can adequately rip off the end user \o/

The point at which they can continue to support their servers and give occasional raises to their development teams.

In other words instead of getting more money out of the retailers that are stealing their business they should charge the poor schmuck who wants to save $5 buying used?

edit: whatever money it cost to run the servers they got when the game was sold NEW. its complete bullshit when they tell you it cost more to when some1 get it used. The guy who bought it new isnt using his share of the server bandwidth if he sold his game.

So the poor schmuck could have just paid the extra $5 for a new copy that comes with the code. Which would still be saving him the same amount. Or if he decides that he would not use the online the poor schmuck could just not pay the extra $5 and not use the online. It makes sense to me.

Or the retailer could charge $5 dollars less for the used game and still save the schmuck $5 dollars. Sure the retailer would cut a little into their 100% profit on the used game so now maybe they get 95% profit which truthfully is still a hell of a profit margin. Which is still better then their profit margin on selling the game new.

 

[DTWolfwood]

Gee.. maybe the poor schmuck who wants to save $5 buying used should hold out for a better deal from the retailers then. Just because you happen to be a schmuck doesn't mean all of us bend over for the retailer.

As for server bandwidth, what universe do you exist in where server charges only happen once? The guy who isn't using the game any more paid for his server use, sure. The new guy who just bought the game? Do you think it doesn't cost any more to keep the servers at full capacity for him?

so you sell something that needs you to maintain servers for that product. You don't account for the reoccurring price of maintaining that servers when you decide on the price? Really?

So if there were no used games at all, are you saying that publishers will have to charged the player who bought the game something extra down the line? and can still decided to randomly close online servers at their whim?

Still dumbfounds me that ppl will defend these corporate monsters. All they want is a way to take your money. I'm fine with that so long as they make a product i want. But when they go out of their way to make it sound like they are hurting for money and that used games are killing them, they don't blame the source but instead blames the customer? How do you not get mad at such vile BULLSHIT and defend them at the same time? WTF is wrong with this world when they fail to sell you a product first hand and require you to pay them second hand? Where in economics does this make any sense? does any other industry require you to pay EXTRA for a used product instead of less? (actually thinking of, technical software does require you to pay extra even used. but that's a licensing agreement) Unless they chose to license their games instead of "Selling" them, they can't ***** if their product is more popular used. As a matter of fact y not charge less for the game NEW so ppl are more tempted to BUY NEW. OMG what a revelation <.<

but whatever arguing over the internet is like the special olympics, even if you're right, you're still retarded. (IrRetarded DeeDEEDeee)

 

[DTWolfwood]

So the poor schmuck could have just paid the extra $5 for a new copy that comes with the code. Which would still be saving him the same amount. Or if he decides that he would not use the online the poor schmuck could just not pay the extra $5 and not use the online. It makes sense to me.

Or the retailer could charge $5 dollars less for the used game and still save the schmuck $5 dollars. Sure the retailer would cut a little into their 100% profit on the used game so now maybe they get 95% profit which truthfully is still a hell of a profit margin. Which is still better then their profit margin on selling the game new.

interesting logic but you're saying its ok for a publisher to CUT a feature out of game to PUNISH the customer who bought their game used?

line in bold is funny XD

They need to have this labeled clearly on the box that tells you will lose certain features if you buy it pre-owned. If they do that i'll be satisfied. Still prefer they lower their prices sooner if their game isn't selling like hot cakes. better to sell some copies at a lower price than to sell no copies at a higher one.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I was waiting for some news like this. Of course, one game and no real numbers doesn't offer much proof of anything, but it's a start. I am a supporter of Project $10 like promotions, in theory anyway, and would like to see just what sort of impact P$10 is having on both used sales and on how many used buyers are paying the P$10 fee after purchase.

 

[tehroc]

Publishers if you hate resale why fight it if its such a profitable business venture? The obvious solution is to get into the resale market, open a store front to compete against Gamestop. Now publishers reap the profits from the used game industry firsthand while the consumer gets all the benefits, no need for online passes and what nots.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Y'know, I have to ask, could the high rate of used game sales (or rather, the high number of games being sold to retailers by ex-players) have anything to do with the quality of the game itself? >.>

It's a direct correlation.
What the article should really say is "We know our games are rubbish, so we want to punish the consumer for the market correcting itself."

Inferior products should be sold at lower prices.

 

[Dogstile]

Its not just used games. I have a tendency to just wait for a month of too. Game usually goes down in price by about a tener. And it's still new.

 

[Jared]

Goes to prove what length people will go to play games online...

 

[MonsterZero74]

I wonder if they considered rentals at all in their equation...

I've been wondering the same thing for a while now. I wonder how this will affect my GameFly subscription. I've always been less than impressed with the 6-7 days it takes to get my next game back, any significant price increase and I don't think I'll be hanging on. That said, it'd be a shame to lose GameFly, they really are one of my favorite businesses to lend continued support to. I'd much rather support them than GameStop.

 

[duchaked]

think about it this way: I wouldn't have bought the game full-priced

I buy used MAYBE cuz it's been 2 years and is now 10-20 bucks

 

[oranger]

I like how he says people are "participating" in used games, rather than using a term like "purchasing"...like its another form of piracy rather than the exercise of our rights.

 

[The Wooster]

Of course UFC is a sports game with a title that implies yearly increments. I imagine it'll see a lot more used/trade action than most games.

 

[mattttherman3]

Drop prices of all games 15$ and I would buy all the games instead of renting them.

 

[Traun]

Laugh all you want, but Publishers are going after the second hand market, and they are going to kill it.

I don't know if you understand, but people who buy used game are worst than pirates, as far as publishers cares. Pirate does not equal sell, but Timmy here was willing to fork money for GTA and he bought it second hand, 5$ cheaper, but they didn't get a cent.

And what the customer gets out of this? Nothing, he is the one ripping off the gaming industry.

Drop prices of all games 15$ and I would buy all the games instead of renting them.

Then they will make second hand games cheaper. Does not resolve anything.

 

[seditary]

"Retail is now thinking about how they can participate in DLC and some of these second user charges that we're doing. We are not trying to push retail aside. We just need to monetize because it is our investment," he said. "We will work with retail but it needs to be more give and take."

= You give, we take.