THQ Using Online Pass for Homefront Multiplayer

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I think it's fair .... the developers get zero dollars if a person buy's it secondhand.

Although what I think would be preferable would be by law have game retailers giving kickbacks to the developers whenever their games are sold second hand.

The only people this will be hurting is the people that buy secondhand games, and to be fair ... they are getting a game, at a reduced price, yet none of that money going to the publisher or developer. Secondhand games (barring the initial purchase price) are 100% profit (to the retailer) when yet the producers of the product and the IP holders get none of that money in return.

It is like saying to someone "you get to enjoy the efforts of others, at a reduced price. And we get to sell it like the intellectual properties are our own".

And it's a continued service too ... patches, advertisement, servers, support etc etc.

As such I dislike secondhand games ... I'm not against loaning games ... because if a friend loans me a game and I like it I'll buy it myself. But I always buy it at the RRP (Recommended Retail Price) because that way there's a good chance that the developers who made the game are atleast likely to get some of that money depending on their legal status and current operations beyond the near date of first release.

 

[Baby Tea]

How is this reasonable? If you sell on your copy of this game then you cede ownership to someone else, perhaps through ebay or through a bricks and mortar shop (which is paying people a job and may well be selling new games and consoles, and as such is a part of the gaming industry), then why should THQ need to make more money selling the new owner an online pass?

Because when one person buys the game, that's 1 sale. THQ makes money.
When that person sells the game, that 2 people who have had the game, THQ gets 1 sale.
When THAT person sells it, that's 3 people who have had the game. THQ makes 1 sale.

Now multiply that by the thousands and thousands of gamers who buy used, and THQ just lost a huge amount of potential income. They want to be paid for their work, and that is reasonable. And rather then alienating the used game market with no online unless you have a pass (A la EA), they still open up the multiplayer but limit it. IF people don't like it, they don't have to pay for the multiplayer. If they do like, they pay for it and THQ gets a portion of a sale. If they are happy with the limited MP, then they still enjoy the product at their used price.

How the heck is that not reasonable?
It's easy to cry 'GREED!' when it's not your business.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I think it's fair .... the developers get zero dollars if a person buy's it secondhand.

Why should they get anything, it wasn't theirs to sell anymore than it's theirs to sell when a sale is made in a shop? If i wish to sell on my games to someone else then that's entirely legal and ethical. I think it's disgraceful that publishers (and no t necessarily the developers) seek to exploit technology to benefit from this.

I hate to quote myself, but because I added the main thrust of my argument in an edit I'll do so in this case.. I apologize for any confusions;-

The only people this will be hurting is the people that buy secondhand games, and to be fair ... they are getting a game, at a reduced price, yet none of that money going to the publisher or developer. Secondhand games (barring the initial purchase price) are 100% profit (to the retailer) when yet the producers of the product and the IP holders get none of that money in return.

It is like saying to someone "you get to enjoy the efforts of others, at a reduced price. And we get to sell it like the intellectual properties are our own".

And it's a continued service too ... patches, advertisement, servers, support etc etc.

As such I dislike secondhand games and will only buy them if I have no other (legal) means to get the product.

I'm not against loaning games ... because if a friend loans me a game and I like it I'll buy it myself. But I always buy it at the RRP (Recommended Retail Price) because that way there's a good chance that the developers who made the game are atleast likely to get some of that money depending on their legal status and current operations beyond the near date of first release.

Edit: I'll also add that in no way does a publisher sell their rights to IP despite someone buying their game and then re-'saling'. It's not the same as a car, or a fridge (albeit individual components of cars and fridges are different) ...

This is why you're also not allowed to show dvd's you bought ibn public without technically seeking legal permission to do so.

 

[Petromir]

Isn't the first sale doctrine supposed to protect against this bullshit? Or are media companies except to that too like they already ignore privacy and fair trial laws?

No, 1st sale only applies to software that hasnt been used. That has been tested in court, all the sucessful 1st sale cases have been gainst things like people splitting bundles and selling the parts or similar. The courts accpeted it was a licenses, but that the license only applied once installed/registered.

Edit: On the main subject I suspect most companies against the used game market, are against middlemen liike games stores getting a second slice of the pie, for almost zero investment, people swapping games at home etc probably barely worry them.

 

[Bretty]

How is this reasonable? If you sell on your copy of this game then you cede ownership to someone else, perhaps through ebay or through a bricks and mortar shop (which is paying people a job and may well be selling new games and consoles, and as such is a part of the gaming industry), then why should THQ need to make more money selling the new owner an online pass? This is pure greed made possible through simple technology. It's not remotely similar to piracy either.

Because Gamestop did anything to deserve the profit off these games? Last time I chaecked they give nothing to the industry as a whole and just sponge off it.

Previously Used sales have hurt the console developers bottom line. This is the way around it so everyone is happy. Except those that buy pre owned, but whatever. You think you deserve the same treatment as those that pay more than you?

 

[tkioz]

While I don't like it, I don't hate it as much as some anti-secondhand systems out there, seems a fairly decent way to offer it, and if you don't like it after 5 levels chances are you wont like it after 50, so no skin of anyones nose.

 

[Baby Tea]

When one person buys the game, THQ don't make any money - they've already sold their inventory to the retailer. The only party making money is the retailer.
If THQ are interested in people buying the copy new as opposed to through the perfectly legal and ethical secondary market (which supports the primary) then they should reduce their prices enough to attract custom. If they can't do that then hard luck.

Oh, so THQ sells the game to the retailer (making money).
The retailer sells the game to make that money back, plus an income.
The retailer then begins to buy games from customers to sell the game back at a (barely) lower price so that the retailer doesn't have to buy as many new copies from THQ, thus losing THQ money.

And your solution is to sell the game at a lower price. The game that cost millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours to make. That may or may not even see the 'black' because of retailers involved with the used game market cutting short their income flow. THAT is your solution?

I don't think you'd last long in business.

Retailers can sell the used game lower then THQ can put it out. Even if THQ sold the game for 75% of the cost it is now, the used game retailer only has to drop it lower. They take the game at crap trades, which means anything they make above that trade is pure profit. Which means that they can go lower then the studio can.

So THQ's idea is this MP pass. Which, for some players, will guarantee at least some income.
It's smart. It's reasonable. It's good business.

 

[WanderingFool]

Wasn't something similar mentioned in an Extra Credits video? Seems like a fair arrangement.

Not sure, but I agree with it. I mean, you rent the game for what? 3 days? (unless you use Gamefly or whatever) So why should I have access to full multiplayer if im not buying the game? This may put me in the minority, but I planned on renting to see if it was any good anyways, and if it is good, Ill buy. If not, I wont. and If I like the game, but not the multiplayer, I can buy it used for cheap and not worry about it.

This make sense to me.

 

[Baresark]

Because when one person buys the game, that's 1 sale. THQ makes money.
When that person sells the game, that 2 people who have had the game, THQ gets 1 sale.
When THAT person sells it, that's 3 people who have had the game. THQ makes 1 sale.

Now multiply that by the thousands and thousands of gamers who buy used, and THQ just lost a huge amount of potential income. They want to be paid for their work, and that is reasonable. And rather then alienating the used game market with no online unless you have a pass (A la EA), they still open up the multiplayer but limit it. IF people don't like it, they don't have to pay for the multiplayer. If they do like, they pay for it and THQ gets a portion of a sale. If they are happy with the limited MP, then they still enjoy the product at their used price.

How the heck is that not reasonable?
It's easy to cry 'GREED!' when it's not your business.

When one person buys the game, THQ don't make any money - they've already sold their inventory to the retailer. The only party making money is the retailer.
If THQ are interested in people buying the copy new as opposed to through the perfectly legal and ethical secondary market (which supports the primary) then they should reduce their prices enough to attract custom. If they can't do that then hard luck.

This assessment is 100% correct. When you buy a car from a dealership, you are buying the inventory the dealership has already purchased. As a matter of fact, without shops like Gamestop to sell their wares, the videogame industry would not be where it is today. It's also a fair assessment if you were to say that Gamestop pays the MSRP or very close to it, for each individual product, and most of the their money is made from selling accessories and other second or third party items for those videogames. This would also include used games.

On the other hand, can you blame the companies for wanting to make more money for their products. Companies want dedicated systems so their games run flawlessly and the customers are happy, this is not an easy task. If they are not charging an online fee to play, then they are not having the influx of capital to keep those systems running efficiently.

Anyway, this is a moot point, I am going to buy this puppy on Steam as soon it's available for sale, perhaps even pre-purchase.

As a matter of fact, as far as profit margins are concerned, they are a company that makes what they make by the shear number of products they sell, rather than gouging every individual, and I'm basing that on this particular graph: http://kotaku.com/352790/gamestop-brings-new-meaning-to-gross-profit

Edit: Game publishers have a habit of only publicly tracking sales on a product that either just came out or is doing excessively well over a long period of time. The profits of a game publisher always makes the bottom line within a company, but you stop hearing about a product usually within a month of it's release with a few rare exceptions, like CoD:Blops for example. We see likewise emulation of this in it's sister industries, music and movies.

 

[Broken Orange]

I am surprised by how much support these guys are giving this, with the two or three who oppose this. For a consumer who buys used, this might not be that great, but they are buying that product at half the price (sometimes) for the same product that someone paid doubled of someone who bought new. I guess this is also fair to those who buy new. They get something that the used consumer would've normally gotten for free. Plus, THQ gets (some) profit they would've never seen.

 

[Mr. Omega]

Well, at least it's better than project $10...

edit: plus, it could be a subscription. People may complain, but it can ALWAYS be worse.

 

[Baby Tea]

My solution to what? The only problem here is the one created by short sighted greedy publishers. ALL game shops in Britain already sell new games and trade games in, for either store credit or cash and sell them as second hand games as well, and i can absolutely promise that without that revenue stream they woudl struggle. It's not just software it's hardware as well; second hand consoles and the like.

Of course retailers would sell the used copy for less than THQ - because it's a second hand product (and as such no longer THQ's to sell). IF THQ want to make more sales from the primary market they need to reduce their primary prices. Moaning that they can't take a cut from secondary sales is as ridiculous as expecting the peopel that built your hosue to profit if you choose to sell it and move out.

And for every copy of Homefront in the secondary market, there had to be a sale from the primary market. This is NOT piracy: the act of creating new copies of the original product to profit from.

First of all, I never equated secondary sales to piracy. I never even mentioned piracy.
So don't pull that out. It's a waste of time.

And don't try to equate home purchasing with game sales. It's beyond silly.
When a home is made, the builders get paid into the black. All available income is made, and the deal is finished. Software developers and publishers have to sell thousands, or even millions of copies in order to break even, let alone turn a profit for their product. They want to ensure that not only will this product be paid for, but that funding for future projects is made. Your analogy is very poor. Not even remotely a parallel.

Think about this:
You said that if THQ can't cut their retail prices, then 'hard luck'. Is that right?
Well if game retailers can't survive when THQ, and many others, try to circumvent the used game market to ensure they see black: Hard luck.

You wail for the struggle of the brick and mortar retailers, but not the businesses that make the industry exist in the first place? Quite frankly: If I had to choose to there being a Gamestop and there being THQ, I'd choose THQ. If retailers can't cope with developers that actually want to make money (Heaven forbid a company wants to make money), then they need to rethink their business model or pack it up.

I have nothing against used game sales.
But I won't cry foul when the developers and publishers try to get their due.

 

[Wicky_42]

Sounds like a good plan, tbh. More restrictive than an unlocked game, of course, but at least there's still multiplayer available to see whether it's worth shelling out for a pass.