ShackNews reports on an emerging trend which sees game publishers offer one-time bonus codes to unlock extra content for certain titles. Rock Band 2, for example, comes with a code which will allow free 20-song download, but is only usable once. NBA Live '09 has functionality to update team rosters on a daily basis, but will only do so for the original owner. "'This information and data is very valuable and it wasn't free for us,' an EA representative explained on Operation Sports. 'T-Mobile is paying for it this year for all users who buy the game new. This is a very expensive tool to use, and if you don't buy it new, then you'll have to pay for this. It isn't greed at all.'"
This is not only aimed at the used game market, but pirates as well. Personally I'd rather see this approach than a root kit and a limited number of installations.
How is it? Think of how this work with a game? For example, you buy the game and get, say, one limited edition weapon with the code, your computer crashes, and that weapon is lost unless you buy the game again. Sure, the game is still playable, but you still lost something when your computer crashed (other than your saved game of course). Then the problem would be worse for MMORPGs where, if you got a limited edition item for using the thing on your own computer, and that computer crashed, it could severely
The chances are pretty high that by the time your computer crashes, the items will all be packaged into a bargain-priced Game of the Year edition or whatever, or even a free download. If not, you can probably get customer service to help you out once or twice if you have the serial #.
For an mmorpg, your inventory is stored on a remote server anyway, so...
I install the game, activate it to my account, register my code to my account, then any time I reinstall as long as I re-use the same credentials everything stays unlocked.
Granted once you start tying things to accounts you get into a whole different can of worms of resale prevention, but theres no reason you cant allow disk re-use.
Really I wish more things were stored based on accounts. A good example of failure there would be Call of Duty 4. In that game you have
How is this an insightful post? Honestly it would have ALMOST had a point if the examples weren't COMPLETELY incorrect.
1) the used game market is about 98% used CONSOLE games. The only way that they can even enforce this on a console game is when the console has an online component like XBox Live. XBox Live stores your account information on their servers, so if your XBox dies, you can restore your bonus "stuff" on the new console.
2) MMORPGs are an even worse example. Both of your points are wrong. a) E
1. Good boys and girls get a bonus for being good. 2. Bad boys and girls figure out how to also benefit from these bonuses. 3. Devs panic and institute some ridiculous mechanism that typically only hinders the good boys and girls.
Example: 1. Everyone that purchases a new copy of a game at release will get a bonus 5 maps. 2. These maps are quickly torrented and now everyone has them. 3. Devs ban these 5 bonus maps from play with a game update. Only players that download and install a EULA-breaking crack will still be able to play these maps.
disincentives don't work either. at least this won't alienate customers if it doesn't work. also, the end of your example demonstrates the problem with the disincentive-based approach, not with the positive incentive-based approach.
i'd much rather developers take this tact than to make it illegal to sell used games/CDs/DVDs. at least this doesn't encroach on fair use rights and doesn't take an anti-consumer attitude.
2 is bullshit, the games are not priced according to the cost to make them but the price they're expected to fetch. It won't ever cost you more because if they think they can get away with a higher price they'd increase the price, new songs or not so the new songs don't matter at all. Also keep in mind that higher price does not equal higher profit, there's an optimum price where any increases end up decreasing profits because noone will buy the product and something like software has a fixed optimum price
Remember, we're talking almost entirely about console games here. PC games have a long tradition of free downloadable post-release content (I remember waiting for my weekly Total Annihilation unit to be released) and it's never really been seen as an anti-piracy or anti-resale measure there. To be blunt, PC piracy is so wide-spread that something like this as an anti-piracy measure would feature pretty highly on the King Canute scale of futility.
Over on the consoles (where around 99% of used-games sales tak
Problem with this is rooted in a basic economic error. The value of an item also, in part, is due to its resale value. The more publishers degrade the resale value the less the item is worth upfront. This is why attempts to outlaw used game sales, or demonize outlets that resale games don't have a leg to stand on.
This method of devaluing only the resale value to the secondary market will still have an impact on the upfront price. Games will be worth less to buyers because of a move like this. Therefore, games will sell less than ever. Which will create a vicious cycle because publishers will likely conclude that they need to take even stricter measures against piracy, when the truth is they simply devalued their own product and would see more sales without the restrictions.
The more publishers degrade the resale value the less the item is worth upfront.
Yup. This is why people are far more willing to plunk down $24,000 for a Toyota than $21,000 for a Ford 6000-SUX, because they know that in 2-3 years, the used Toyota will fetch $5000 more than the Ford.
what you're saying makes sense, but it's more complicated than that. i mean, resale value is a huge factor when it comes to cars, homes, and other large items that people frequently resale and also put a lot more thought into purchasing (and negotiating the purchase).
with gaming, it's almost an inelastic demand. if you want a particular game, there's only one publisher. you can't substitute a competing product for it. and all mainstream game publishers pretty much have the same general anti-consumer attitude. so it's not the same as buying an Honda/Toyota instead of a Ford/GM because imports have much higher resale values than domestics. that kind of decision-making process doesn't factor into game purchases. there's also less of a market for used games, and this is due to cultural as well as legal factors.
think about diamonds and engagement rings. the De Beers cartel has launched one of the most successful (and insidious) marketing/advertising campaigns in the history of consumerism. not only did they inject their product into our cultural institutions and traditions (diamond engagement rings are a relatively new phenomenon in the history of human marriage), but they have also gone as far as to manipulate our cultural values to suit their business model.
the whole "a diamond is forever" commercial campaign was tied into a much larger marketing campaign aimed at stopping the resale of diamonds. De Beers works very hard to control the global supply of diamonds to create an artificial scarcity which drives prices up, but that would be undermined if the market were flooded with second-hand diamonds. so in order to combat this, they came up with the "a diamond is forever" slogan to discourage people from buying or selling "used" diamonds. so instead of mothers passing their diamonds down to their daughter, or to their son to give to his fiancée, men and women are encouraged to purchase brand new diamonds as a symbol of their "eternal" love for one another.
the result of this marketing campaign is that used or second-hand diamonds have very low resale value. consumers don't want to buy used rings or jewelry. because of the lack of demand for them, De Beers is able to purchase up all of these second-hand diamonds, re-polish and re-set them, and then sell them as brand new diamonds at the artificially inflated prices. so in the end, this intentionally reduction of resale value add huge profits to the cartel's monopoly.
with games, it's not quite so extreme, but there's still a socialized reluctance to purchase used games. i mean, everyone wants the latest and greatest gaming title. no one even wants to buy a 2-year-old unused game from the bargain bin. except for legacy systems and hardcore gamers, there's very little demand for refurbished games. it's just not even a notion gamers are accustomed to. most people aren't in the habit of shopping for used games the way that people shop for used cars. so in the end, the negative impact this one-time bonus policy might have on resale value won't really make much of an impact on market demand.
And they are highly profitable. You can buy back a brand new title that's selling for $59.99 for $20 a week after it's released and then sell it to the next consumer for $50. You just made $30 profit for a little bit of overhead and two consumers just got their fix a little bit cheaper. Everyone except the publishers win.
Legacy titles are a bonus, but the money is all in new releases.
Problem with this is rooted in a basic economic error. The value of an item also, in part, is due to its resale value. The more publishers degrade the resale value the less the item is worth upfront. This is why attempts to outlaw used game sales, or demonize outlets that resale games don't have a leg to stand on. This method of devaluing only the resale value to the secondary market will still have an impact on the upfront price. Games will be worth less to buyers because of a move like this. Therefore, games will sell less than ever. Which will create a vicious cycle because publishers will likely conclude that they need to take even stricter measures against piracy, when the truth is they simply devalued their own product and would see more sales without the restrictions.
I've said before that EA's making a bad move in forcing their potential customers to look more carefully at what you are and aren't allowed to do with your purchase. Games are impulse purchases. Take away the impulse, and just like you're saying, they'll eat away at their own market. You'd think Nintendo's "it prints money!!11!" successes with the DS and the Wii would have hit that point home already.
I don't think we are really to zero just yet. I'm even a little piqued at all the people who are arguing that most people will pirate because the goods are effectively free, and free always beats any other price. What I'm seeing is people buying 500 Gb. hard drives to hold that 'free' content, plus commercial disk burning and processing software, tons of blank DVDs, monthly paid Usenet access, and other costs for this 'free' stuff. I'm also seeing people spend a lot of time learning esoteric software just t
Is in the upcoming Gears of War 2 - there will be four maps available for download for multiplayer free on the day the game launches, but only if you buy it new.
This is the right strategy for publishers to take - add value to incentivize purchase, instead of making your brand new version worse than a used/stolen version.
By your logic, if a restaurant gives free appetizers to their best customers then they're "removing value" from the meals of all of their other customers. If a casino comps a high roller they're "removing value" from everyone else who visits the casino.
Rewarding customers who give you money is a better system than punishing all customers regardless. Maybe if the used-game retailers want to share the money they make on used games with the publishers they can come to some sort of a deal so that used-game buye
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday October 04 2008, @08:22PM (#25260425)
By your logic, if a restaurant gives free appetizers to their best customers then they're "removing value" from the meals of all of their other customers.
Food is not resold so its hardly the same.
If a casino comps a high roller they're "removing value" from everyone else who visits the casino.
Again, wagers in a casino are not resold.
It would be more like Ford selling you a car that comes with free wheels as a bonus but prevented you from selling the car with those wheels.
Maybe if the used-game retailers want to share the money they make on used games with the publishers they can come to some sort of a deal so that used-game buyers get some bonus material, too. But not offering merchandise to people who aren't paying you for it is hardly "greed".
Thats not a very good idea. Next Ford will want a percentage of the sale price of a used car.
Rewarding customers who give you money is a better system than punishing all customers regardless.
Yes the second part is right but the first part is hardly relevant. The game has been paid for, they made a sale. Nobody is not paying for the game. If the games became cheaper as a result of this then it might make a difference. They just want more money. Its pure greed.
I don't think it is so much the used game market angle that is pissing people off,it is all this "limited activation" crap they have been trying to shovel on us. You want to give us a bonus for buying it new? Then fine,make it like Steam where I can get my stuff back if my PC takes a crap. But of course in all likelihood it'll be "Oh your PC took a crap? Well whip out your CC buddy,because we just screwed you REAL good!" and THAT is the problem.
And as for "sharing the used game money with the publishers"
15 years from now, when people are picking up the "classics" from this generation, they won't get the full experience that people today got because the game may not be being sold new.
I like this analogy better: It's like you buy an album, and you get a free downloadable track that's a super awesome track. You got it because you bought the album new. Somehow, the RIAA comes up with a magic uncrackable un-analog-recordable DRM that means this bonus track never finds its way to torrent sites. Now 15 years later the original album goes out of print, but it's a bit of a "cult classic." People download the CD from torrent sites or iTunes and enjoy it, but nobody at the label ever bothered to put the "super awesome track" in the iTunes version of the album. Well sure, you have all the tracks from the OFFICIAL album tracklist, but that super awesome free track that everybody raved about 15 years ago is lost in time and space, unless somebody at the label decides to confer the priviledge of hearing that track again to you.
Until all game distribution goes digital (and even when it does), I believe some of these little extra bits will get lost. Personally I'd prefer it if the game came with a really nice poster or plastic figure or something in the REGULAR version of the game. Not the $100 "Collector's Edition," I mean the $60 regular shmuck's copy. It's a nice incentive for customers who buy it new (who's going to sell it to a used game store along with the plastic figure?), and it doesn't take away from the game experience if you don't.
If you look at the average anime rack in DVD stores, new releases are packed with toys and art books and soundtracks and all kinds of stuff to convince you to pay $30 for 4 25-minute episodes. That's the way to do it.
Forget the posters and such... just give me a full manual like they used to. I remember when computer games always came with a honkin' big manual that covered every aspect of the game and even gave you some tips. A PDF on a CD doesn't even compare to having a spiral bound book with cheat sheets, stats and even a section in the back for notes. I guess I'm all nostalgic after coming across my old Neverwinter Nights manual the other day; ironically, I lost 1 of the 2 disks (although I found my old receipt w
No. There is no sence in selling already-eaten food. There is a market for used games. What game developers aught to be doing is giving their games a longer term value. I still play doom because it has no DRM which prevents me from doing so. (hey, every time I want to play I pirate it, but I had bought and lost/destroyed two copies back in the day so I beleive I am rightfully entitled) There are still all sorts of interesting single player levels being made, and there are all sorts of interesting peopl
I agree, the game industry is becoming more and more unaccomodating to the used and rental game retailers. I could totally see EA or similar releasing games that are effectively demos unless you had bought it brand new. How successful that would be is another story.
It's neither. It's business. If something costs too much to sustain it given the game turnover and the fact that the publishers only make money on the original sale, they have to find some other way to get paid for it. Subscription could work, but it's a hassle and most people won't subscribe to more than a few services. This seems like a pretty reasonable way to be compensated for valuable content to me.
As long as they don't start making the one time bonuses something important to the main game, like downloadable endings or downloadable entire second half of the game.
So consumers get jerked around when they rent a game from EA? That's been true for a long time, EA pretty much sucks when it comes to respecting the customer. Don't buy EA games, even under the Maxis title. If you do, then expect to be treated like a chump.
Apparently EA is allowing you to buy the content for $20 for NBA Live. This is a highly touted feature of the game and is most useful at the beginning of a season. If the original owner sells the game back to Gamestop soon after release, Gamestop is going to charge $54.99 for it. So the full version of the game is now $74.99.
What bothers me most about this is eBay sellers. These people can open boxes and take codes and sell the games as new. Additionally some poor sucker who buys a game from an eBay seller
That would be nice, which is why EA is offering it. This EA thing and the Rock Band thing are ways to give spiffs to the first purchaser, in an effort to get more people to be first purchasers, similar to the way Infocom used to package in feelies to encourage people to purchase thier easily pirated games.
Bitching about this seems a lot like complaining that a used car doesn't come with the free key fobs, or the new car smell.
Copyright holders have been trying to destroy the secondary market for decades. They've used various tactics, but if that is the goal this one is the most benign tactic I've seen.
Like I said, if a secondary market purchaser can buy the extras I'll be convinced this is not about destroying the secondary market. If not, I can see the slippery slope where eventually the game will be practically useless to the secondary market purchaser as most of the game is now for primary market buyers only. In the end you g
This is interesting. My first thought for this is that if I've purchased a game second hand, and by some defectivebydesign defect, I can't access the bonus content, I'll get a pirate copy of that content. Surely by buying something second hand, I've paid for the same rights as that bestowed on the previous owner, so would a judge back me?
If you didn't torrent it, the judge would almost certainly back you. It's called the right of first sale - basically, if you buy a copy of a copyrighted work, the holder loses all say as to who or how you can sell that.
The game companies, of course, are trying to have their cake and eat it. They claim that the 'sale' was in fact a license, but that this license conferrs none of the benefits of a license like the ethereal nature of the purchase making the actual media cheap/free, or re-downloading your 'lice
I'm not sure why you argue that if you buy something second hand you've paid for the same rights as if you bought it first hand.
Suppose I sold person A car, and threw in a year's worth of free carwashes. You come along and buy the car from Person A, and claim your one year of free car-washes.
I made no agreement with you for provision of car washes. You may have bought the car, but unless the agreement I made with A specifically mentions the fact that A can transfer his entitlement to those services or that
I know the desire to promote the sales of their products but I get the feeling this sort of promo that applies only to the original purchaser of the game may run afoul of the First Sale doctrine [wikipedia.org] of the US copyright law.
I personally like "physical" promo bonuses, such as a free copy of another (older) game...or a limited edition widget/whachamacallits, etc. Or even a game poster.
This makes me think of textbooks that come with CD's and online help, so that it encourages people to buy the book new(for like $150), also international editions usually have the problem numbers messed up and is a slight pain for Americans who buy them. Its a money grabbing move, but its much much better than DRM or anything like that.
If it's tied to one console with DRM and you can't bring it to a friend's house, it takes away a lot of the fun of the game. It also takes away a lot of the value if I can't sell it used, if I don't like the game it's a lot harder for me to get rid of it because my friends would rather buy the one with the bonus content if they like it, and it's probably more of a ripoff for me if I take it to a used game store. I'd rather just have the content on the disc.
It is kind of funny to me that with our tech prowess we have somehow figured out a way to create products that will be lost to the sands of time long before they become useless. I can still enjoy my 80's NES games. What about my Gears of War 2 "bonus" maps? Or my DRMed music tracks? Nope those will be gone in 10 years. This is not progression folks! In 500 years our ancestors will have quite a job cut out for them figuring out how we ticked, based solely on the greed of some companies. Art will be lost in a way that is inexcusable in our modern world. Fuck you greedy bastards.
It would be interesting to see how much of the second-hand earnings goes back into buying new games. Of course, a second-hand sale means less business for that particular product but a healthy second-hand market could easily translate to more business overall.
Better than root kits (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not only aimed at the used game market, but pirates as well. Personally I'd rather see this approach than a root kit and a limited number of installations.
Re:Better than root kits (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. Incentives to encourage the desired behavior are much better than punishments based on the assumption that all of your customers are hostile.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Better than root kits (Score:5, Insightful)
The chances are pretty high that by the time your computer crashes, the items will all be packaged into a bargain-priced Game of the Year edition or whatever, or even a free download. If not, you can probably get customer service to help you out once or twice if you have the serial #.
For an mmorpg, your inventory is stored on a remote server anyway, so...
Parent
Re:Better than root kits (Score:4, Funny)
I disagree.
I'm a tweaker and tend to re-install windows very often, especially when tweaking for a specific game.
Maybe if you weren't taking so much meth then you'd remember you'd installed Windows properly the first time? Just a thought...
Parent
Re:Better than root kits (Score:4, Insightful)
Ever pull the Atari/Vectrex/Nintendo out of the basement to relive some memories?
Not to mention if the game happens to be for your XBox360 you could find yourself missing that first owner bonus sooner than you think!
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Your problem is easily solved by accounts.
I install the game, activate it to my account, register my code to my account, then any time I reinstall as long as I re-use the same credentials everything stays unlocked.
Granted once you start tying things to accounts you get into a whole different can of worms of resale prevention, but theres no reason you cant allow disk re-use.
Really I wish more things were stored based on accounts. A good example of failure there would be Call of Duty 4. In that game you have
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is this an insightful post? Honestly it would have ALMOST had a point if the examples weren't COMPLETELY incorrect.
1) the used game market is about 98% used CONSOLE games. The only way that they can even enforce this on a console game is when the console has an online component like XBox Live. XBox Live stores your account information on their servers, so if your XBox dies, you can restore your bonus "stuff" on the new console.
2) MMORPGs are an even worse example. Both of your points are wrong. a) E
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Better than root kits (Score:5, Insightful)
These incentives don't work.
1. Good boys and girls get a bonus for being good.
2. Bad boys and girls figure out how to also benefit from these bonuses.
3. Devs panic and institute some ridiculous mechanism that typically only hinders the good boys and girls.
Example:
1. Everyone that purchases a new copy of a game at release will get a bonus 5 maps.
2. These maps are quickly torrented and now everyone has them.
3. Devs ban these 5 bonus maps from play with a game update. Only players that download and install a EULA-breaking crack will still be able to play these maps.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
disincentives don't work either. at least this won't alienate customers if it doesn't work. also, the end of your example demonstrates the problem with the disincentive-based approach, not with the positive incentive-based approach.
i'd much rather developers take this tact than to make it illegal to sell used games/CDs/DVDs. at least this doesn't encroach on fair use rights and doesn't take an anti-consumer attitude.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
2 is bullshit, the games are not priced according to the cost to make them but the price they're expected to fetch. It won't ever cost you more because if they think they can get away with a higher price they'd increase the price, new songs or not so the new songs don't matter at all. Also keep in mind that higher price does not equal higher profit, there's an optimum price where any increases end up decreasing profits because noone will buy the product and something like software has a fixed optimum price
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, we're talking almost entirely about console games here. PC games have a long tradition of free downloadable post-release content (I remember waiting for my weekly Total Annihilation unit to be released) and it's never really been seen as an anti-piracy or anti-resale measure there. To be blunt, PC piracy is so wide-spread that something like this as an anti-piracy measure would feature pretty highly on the King Canute scale of futility.
Over on the consoles (where around 99% of used-games sales tak
Re:Better than root kits (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup. This is why people are far more willing to plunk down $24,000 for a Toyota than $21,000 for a Ford 6000-SUX, because they know that in 2-3 years, the used Toyota will fetch $5000 more than the Ford.
Re:Better than root kits (Score:4, Insightful)
what you're saying makes sense, but it's more complicated than that. i mean, resale value is a huge factor when it comes to cars, homes, and other large items that people frequently resale and also put a lot more thought into purchasing (and negotiating the purchase).
with gaming, it's almost an inelastic demand. if you want a particular game, there's only one publisher. you can't substitute a competing product for it. and all mainstream game publishers pretty much have the same general anti-consumer attitude. so it's not the same as buying an Honda/Toyota instead of a Ford/GM because imports have much higher resale values than domestics. that kind of decision-making process doesn't factor into game purchases. there's also less of a market for used games, and this is due to cultural as well as legal factors.
think about diamonds and engagement rings. the De Beers cartel has launched one of the most successful (and insidious) marketing/advertising campaigns in the history of consumerism. not only did they inject their product into our cultural institutions and traditions (diamond engagement rings are a relatively new phenomenon in the history of human marriage), but they have also gone as far as to manipulate our cultural values to suit their business model.
the whole "a diamond is forever" commercial campaign was tied into a much larger marketing campaign aimed at stopping the resale of diamonds. De Beers works very hard to control the global supply of diamonds to create an artificial scarcity which drives prices up, but that would be undermined if the market were flooded with second-hand diamonds. so in order to combat this, they came up with the "a diamond is forever" slogan to discourage people from buying or selling "used" diamonds. so instead of mothers passing their diamonds down to their daughter, or to their son to give to his fiancée, men and women are encouraged to purchase brand new diamonds as a symbol of their "eternal" love for one another.
the result of this marketing campaign is that used or second-hand diamonds have very low resale value. consumers don't want to buy used rings or jewelry. because of the lack of demand for them, De Beers is able to purchase up all of these second-hand diamonds, re-polish and re-set them, and then sell them as brand new diamonds at the artificially inflated prices. so in the end, this intentionally reduction of resale value add huge profits to the cartel's monopoly.
with games, it's not quite so extreme, but there's still a socialized reluctance to purchase used games. i mean, everyone wants the latest and greatest gaming title. no one even wants to buy a 2-year-old unused game from the bargain bin. except for legacy systems and hardcore gamers, there's very little demand for refurbished games. it's just not even a notion gamers are accustomed to. most people aren't in the habit of shopping for used games the way that people shop for used cars. so in the end, the negative impact this one-time bonus policy might have on resale value won't really make much of an impact on market demand.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And they are highly profitable. You can buy back a brand new title that's selling for $59.99 for $20 a week after it's released and then sell it to the next consumer for $50. You just made $30 profit for a little bit of overhead and two consumers just got their fix a little bit cheaper. Everyone except the publishers win.
Legacy titles are a bonus, but the money is all in new releases.
Re:Better than root kits (Score:4, Insightful)
Problem with this is rooted in a basic economic error. The value of an item also, in part, is due to its resale value. The more publishers degrade the resale value the less the item is worth upfront. This is why attempts to outlaw used game sales, or demonize outlets that resale games don't have a leg to stand on. This method of devaluing only the resale value to the secondary market will still have an impact on the upfront price. Games will be worth less to buyers because of a move like this. Therefore, games will sell less than ever. Which will create a vicious cycle because publishers will likely conclude that they need to take even stricter measures against piracy, when the truth is they simply devalued their own product and would see more sales without the restrictions.
I've said before that EA's making a bad move in forcing their potential customers to look more carefully at what you are and aren't allowed to do with your purchase. Games are impulse purchases. Take away the impulse, and just like you're saying, they'll eat away at their own market. You'd think Nintendo's "it prints money!!11!" successes with the DS and the Wii would have hit that point home already.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think we are really to zero just yet. I'm even a little piqued at all the people who are arguing that most people will pirate because the goods are effectively free, and free always beats any other price. What I'm seeing is people buying 500 Gb. hard drives to hold that 'free' content, plus commercial disk burning and processing software, tons of blank DVDs, monthly paid Usenet access, and other costs for this 'free' stuff. I'm also seeing people spend a lot of time learning esoteric software just t
Another such incentive... (Score:4, Insightful)
Is in the upcoming Gears of War 2 - there will be four maps available for download for multiplayer free on the day the game launches, but only if you buy it new.
This is the right strategy for publishers to take - add value to incentivize purchase, instead of making your brand new version worse than a used/stolen version.
Re:Another such incentive... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the right strategy for publishers to take - add value to incentivize purchase
They are not adding value. They are removing value and then adding it back with restrictions designed to devalue the game on the used market.
This in not the right strategy this is greed.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By your logic, if a restaurant gives free appetizers to their best customers then they're "removing value" from the meals of all of their other customers. If a casino comps a high roller they're "removing value" from everyone else who visits the casino.
Rewarding customers who give you money is a better system than punishing all customers regardless. Maybe if the used-game retailers want to share the money they make on used games with the publishers they can come to some sort of a deal so that used-game buye
Re:Another such incentive... (Score:4, Insightful)
By your logic, if a restaurant gives free appetizers to their best customers then they're "removing value" from the meals of all of their other customers.
Food is not resold so its hardly the same.
If a casino comps a high roller they're "removing value" from everyone else who visits the casino.
Again, wagers in a casino are not resold.
It would be more like Ford selling you a car that comes with free wheels as a bonus but prevented you from selling the car with those wheels.
Maybe if the used-game retailers want to share the money they make on used games with the publishers they can come to some sort of a deal so that used-game buyers get some bonus material, too. But not offering merchandise to people who aren't paying you for it is hardly "greed".
Thats not a very good idea. Next Ford will want a percentage of the sale price of a used car.
Rewarding customers who give you money is a better system than punishing all customers regardless.
Yes the second part is right but the first part is hardly relevant. The game has been paid for, they made a sale. Nobody is not paying for the game. If the games became cheaper as a result of this then it might make a difference. They just want more money. Its pure greed.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it is so much the used game market angle that is pissing people off,it is all this "limited activation" crap they have been trying to shovel on us. You want to give us a bonus for buying it new? Then fine,make it like Steam where I can get my stuff back if my PC takes a crap. But of course in all likelihood it'll be "Oh your PC took a crap? Well whip out your CC buddy,because we just screwed you REAL good!" and THAT is the problem.
And as for "sharing the used game money with the publishers"
Re:Another such incentive... (Score:5, Interesting)
I like this analogy better: It's like you buy an album, and you get a free downloadable track that's a super awesome track. You got it because you bought the album new. Somehow, the RIAA comes up with a magic uncrackable un-analog-recordable DRM that means this bonus track never finds its way to torrent sites. Now 15 years later the original album goes out of print, but it's a bit of a "cult classic." People download the CD from torrent sites or iTunes and enjoy it, but nobody at the label ever bothered to put the "super awesome track" in the iTunes version of the album. Well sure, you have all the tracks from the OFFICIAL album tracklist, but that super awesome free track that everybody raved about 15 years ago is lost in time and space, unless somebody at the label decides to confer the priviledge of hearing that track again to you.
Until all game distribution goes digital (and even when it does), I believe some of these little extra bits will get lost. Personally I'd prefer it if the game came with a really nice poster or plastic figure or something in the REGULAR version of the game. Not the $100 "Collector's Edition," I mean the $60 regular shmuck's copy. It's a nice incentive for customers who buy it new (who's going to sell it to a used game store along with the plastic figure?), and it doesn't take away from the game experience if you don't.
If you look at the average anime rack in DVD stores, new releases are packed with toys and art books and soundtracks and all kinds of stuff to convince you to pay $30 for 4 25-minute episodes. That's the way to do it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Damn you for mentioning RT II, I had Steam open. Now I'm out 5 bucks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. There is no sence in selling already-eaten food. There is a market for used games. What game developers aught to be doing is giving their games a longer term value. I still play doom because it has no DRM which prevents me from doing so. (hey, every time I want to play I pirate it, but I had bought and lost/destroyed two copies back in the day so I beleive I am rightfully entitled) There are still all sorts of interesting single player levels being made, and there are all sorts of interesting peopl
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree, the game industry is becoming more and more unaccomodating to the used and rental game retailers. I could totally see EA or similar releasing games that are effectively demos unless you had bought it brand new. How successful that would be is another story.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This in not the right strategy this is greed.
It's neither. It's business. If something costs too much to sustain it given the game turnover and the fact that the publishers only make money on the original sale, they have to find some other way to get paid for it. Subscription could work, but it's a hassle and most people won't subscribe to more than a few services. This seems like a pretty reasonable way to be compensated for valuable content to me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as they don't start making the one time bonuses something important to the main game, like downloadable endings or downloadable entire second half of the game.
Re:Another such incentive... (Score:5, Insightful)
What good are multiplayer maps that other players don't have access to? Isn't the point to play with others?
Parent
EA as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, but an option to buy (Score:3, Insightful)
An option to buy the extra content if you are a second-hand owner would be nice. They get the money, the buyer gets the content, everybody's happy.
Doing that would show an honest monetary interest in the extra content rather than a plain desire to kill the secondary market.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair, reasonable, and seemingly easy to implement. I wonder how the content-owners would manage to f**k it up if they tried it.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently EA is allowing you to buy the content for $20 for NBA Live. This is a highly touted feature of the game and is most useful at the beginning of a season. If the original owner sells the game back to Gamestop soon after release, Gamestop is going to charge $54.99 for it. So the full version of the game is now $74.99.
What bothers me most about this is eBay sellers. These people can open boxes and take codes and sell the games as new. Additionally some poor sucker who buys a game from an eBay seller
Re: (Score:2)
Bitching about this seems a lot like complaining that a used car doesn't come with the free key fobs, or the new car smell.
I don't entirely trust (Score:3, Interesting)
Copyright holders have been trying to destroy the secondary market for decades. They've used various tactics, but if that is the goal this one is the most benign tactic I've seen.
Like I said, if a secondary market purchaser can buy the extras I'll be convinced this is not about destroying the secondary market. If not, I can see the slippery slope where eventually the game will be practically useless to the secondary market purchaser as most of the game is now for primary market buyers only. In the end you g
If you've paid, is it legal to pirate? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is interesting. My first thought for this is that if I've purchased a game second hand, and by some defectivebydesign defect, I can't access the bonus content, I'll get a pirate copy of that content. Surely by buying something second hand, I've paid for the same rights as that bestowed on the previous owner, so would a judge back me?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't know. What major publishing/media company do you own? The answer generally seems to depend on such trivial things.
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't torrent it, the judge would almost certainly back you. It's called the right of first sale - basically, if you buy a copy of a copyrighted work, the holder loses all say as to who or how you can sell that.
The game companies, of course, are trying to have their cake and eat it. They claim that the 'sale' was in fact a license, but that this license conferrs none of the benefits of a license like the ethereal nature of the purchase making the actual media cheap/free, or re-downloading your 'lice
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why you argue that if you buy something second hand you've paid for the same rights as if you bought it first hand.
Suppose I sold person A car, and threw in a year's worth of free carwashes. You come along and buy the car from Person A, and claim your one year of free car-washes.
I made no agreement with you for provision of car washes. You may have bought the car, but unless the agreement I made with A specifically mentions the fact that A can transfer his entitlement to those services or that
this kosher with first sale doctrine? (Score:3, Insightful)
I know the desire to promote the sales of their products but I get the feeling this sort of promo that applies only to the original purchaser of the game may run afoul of the First Sale doctrine [wikipedia.org] of the US copyright law.
I personally like "physical" promo bonuses, such as a free copy of another (older) game...or a limited edition widget/whachamacallits, etc.
Or even a game poster.
Textbooks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think they're going to get rid of DRM in favour of this, I've got a bridge to sell you. Betting odds say we'll have both DRM and this.
The motive is disgusting... (Score:2)
I wonder if the idea of 100 people legally passing the game around after each person beats it keeps them from sleeping at night...
Not really worth it... (Score:2, Insightful)
It is greed after all. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be interesting to see how much of the second-hand earnings goes back into buying new games. Of course, a second-hand sale means less business for that particular product but a healthy second-hand market could easily translate to more business overall.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Er... and by "frown" I mean the 8 1/2" x 14" kind of "frown"...