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

The Rascal King

New member
Aug 13, 2009
782
0
0
Hahahaha! I wouldn't even pay five dollars for a UFC game

However, this isn't good news if this shit catches on. Next thing you know you're paying twenty dollars to change your in-game avatar for a future game title. I will have none of that, sir.
 

FloodOne

New member
Apr 29, 2009
455
0
0
I love how people automatically assume that if games were cheaper, used game sales would fade away. Absolutely ludicrous thinking on your part. When given a choice between $40 or $35, WHICH DO YOU THINK THE AVERAGE CHEAPSKATE CONSUMER IS GOING TO CHOOSE? My guess is the one that cost five bucks less.

Enough with the lowering prices nonsense, its a thin argument at best. Besides, the consumer got themselves into this mess years ago. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

EDIT- Whoops, I quoted the wrong poster. My point still remains though. Sorry for the mix up.
 

Pumpkin_Eater

New member
Mar 17, 2009
992
0
0
This is why Valve is the only big label game company I buy from. Videogame makers are the not only put their customers through the wringer, they're brash, even boastful about it. You listening THQ? Activision? You won't make a penny off of me until you atone for what you've done to your customers.

EDIT: The next time you feel like forking over fifty or sixty of your hard earned dollars to one of these behemoths, log onto Steam and find yourself a nice twenty dollar indie title. I promise you'll come across something better than the samey, stripped down titles that the sheople in the big name studios are cranking out.
 

SelectivelyEvil13

New member
Jul 28, 2010
956
0
0
I think it is more than obvious as to why people buy used games. They're cheaper so the buyer saves some money, end of story. The greater problem is that they are not addressing why there are so many used games in the first place. A used game means someone bought that game, had enough of it, and wanted some of their money back. In other words, that original customer was not satisfied with the product and was willing to part with it for less than they paid for so they could use the returns for something else.

Like it or not, game companies, but that something may be your competition. Why keep around a game (with yearly reiterations no less) if it's not worth playing for more than a week compared to the AAA game that costs exactly the same?
 

Giddi

New member
Feb 5, 2008
77
0
0
DTWolfwood said:
Kwil said:
DTWolfwood said:
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.

Wait... what is the difference between:
a)One user paying $80 for a game and playing on the servers for a year,
b)One user paying $80 for a game and playing on the servers for 6 months, then selling it to a mate who plays on the servers for 6 months?

In both cases the $80 is paid for, and the server is used by one login for a year. There is no extra load on the server.

For any given server there is a given amount of time it needs to be up. a couple of years is a pretty long time, more successful games will be longer. If you purchased a game second hand and it was a few years old, would you expect to be able to play more than the single player? Doubtful. I would be surprised if I could still play online.

This extra charge is greed, pure and simple. They are not losing out on the game being sold 2nd hand, consumers need to vote with their wallet on bullsh#t like this.
 

Jodah

New member
Aug 2, 2008
2,280
0
0
Maybe if the game was...good people would buy it new. I know I don't mind paying full price for a good game but if it looks mediocre I will wait for a used copy.
 

Physics Engine

New member
Aug 18, 2010
146
0
0
Retailers don't make much money off new game sales. Even bought at wholesale and in quantity a retailer is lucky to make $5 (net) off a new game if even that. Ever wonder how Wal-Mart sells everything at a lower price than anywhere else except video games? There's no room in mark-up to cut prices without cutting profits so they're the same price as EB or Target or Blockbuster.

If publishers want a cut, then they should start their own chain of stores to sell their own used games. If they expect a cut from the EB/Gamestops or mom and pop game stores they're sadly mistaken. They can't give up a cut of the only part of the business that keeps them afloat. Publishers and developers are going to witness the death of brick and mortar stores to sell their wares and bow to submission to the Wal-Marts, K-Marts, Targets, Best Buys and the like. When the big-box boys won't hold "ultra-violent video games" on their shelves due to parental or governmental pressure, there goes the M rating just like Ao went the way of the dodo and the publishers/developers can do nothing about it.

Publishers and developers need to rethink the way their games are developed if they're struggling so badly for cash. There's too many AAA budget games and too few AAA quality games. There's no point spending a hundred million bucks on polishing a turd, yet they seem to do it every day and I, the consumer, am expected to pick up the pieces? Umm, no.