Battlefield 3 producer says blocking used games can be beneficial - Report

DICE, you already screwed us with an online pass with Bf3 so of course your all for this...This is a bad idea. PERIOD!!! What about rented games? Your telling me I can't enjoy a rented game? I can't enjoy taking a game to friends house? This is stupid. Stop being ****ing greedy. The devs are whats hurting the industry. If this goes into effect I'm all for pirating and just straight stealing the ****. **** your profits...I'm a real gamer, don't treat me like I'm some ****ing casual new to gaming. This BS does make me upset...Along with paying for a service "ALL OTHER PALTFORMS GIVE FOR FREE"... Screw you M$!

@Buck_Swaggler I agree, however, I think what is more likely to happen is that developers will try and recoup their money with DRM. Buying a used copy will only allow you to play a lite version of the full game until you cough up $ to play the full version of the game. That just seems like the most logical step imo.

@lance_7 While I appreciate your candidness, I can't help but feeling that you're being a little short-sighted. Right now, the industry is structured in such a way that publishers are often the only funding source for many games. That's rapidly changing. The same digital networks that are allowing publishers to push these sorts of changes are also quickly making them obsolete as funding sources. If your concern is for the ability of developers to keep making quality games (or as you put it, your ability to continue playing them), I suggest you look into crowdsourced funding models. Extra Credits did a good bit on it a few weeks back.

@SkamArtist Having used games cost more is better than not having them at all. Also, personally, I'd like to know that I'm still supporting the devs even when I buy used. Plus, prices with used games are always in flux, costing more is relative, because they will always go down over time anyway.

@Ladiesman17 Very good for asians, now for the real world: http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_5.html You can get quotes in the link above from several big names in industry saying how they are moving away from PC games developing and into developing games for consoles because "the amount of people who pirate PC games is astounding" compared to the amount who do it for consoles, resulting in better console sales. I'm sorry that these "Asians" of yours can't download small game cracks using torrents to play PC games, but apparently can open up their consoles and install an illegal chip that disables the piracy security in the console. They, however, are not the whole world's market. . . In fact, even if we assumed I was wrong about console piracy being a lot less spread than PC piracy (and I'm not), however, do you think people that are able to modify their console's hardware to allow pirated games to be played can't do the same thing to allow used games to be played? They probably could, making Bach's cramming of the "piracy" problem here even less relevant to consoles.

@Buck_Swaggler The problem with that is the average price of used games would go up.

@ lance_7 Also Bayonetta 2 was cancelled due to Sega re-structure. The article was on here (although i can't find it) and i'm positive there was no mention of second hand sales being the culprit for the cancellation of the game.

If this is such a problem, instead of punishing consumers, why not try to work out a deal with game retailers where the developers get a little kick back when a used game is sold?

@ lance_7 I'm not saying they don't, I am against piracy as that undercuts the company 100%, as there isn't even an initial sale with piracy but how come this argument has never come up before? I remember when i was a kid with my Commodore 64 buying second hand games off my mates. Even though most games were only £2 brand new (which was a lot of money to me at the time!). Same with Mega Drive/Genesis/SNES. There where even shops set up in the centre of town that sold second hand games as well as brand new ones and this was getting on for 15/20 years ago. How come Sega, and the other companies, never said second hand sales where hurting their profits?

I think gamers are getting sick of the constant money grab that game companies have. It's got to the stage where they even release DLC on the same day games are released (Mass Effect 3) and put DLC on the game disk (SFxTekken). Even if you ignore that a lot of DLC is pathetic. It more often than not falls short and with all the DLC released for a game you are effectively buying the game twice, sometimes three times over. I'm not against expanding a game after release but they should put out a decent bulky expansion pack. Similar to Blizzard released for Warcraft and Diablo 2 or THQ have done for the original Dawn of War games. Again it comes back to quality, not only of the original product, but the expansion that followed it. First it was piracy harming profits, now it's second hand games hurting profits. It's just excuses to squeeze us for more money.

I say ban retailers from selling used games only. That way us gamers benefit because we can trade with each other directly without the buyer paying extra just because of the retailer's mark-up. The industry won't suffer as a result of that and us gamers can still sell off the games we're done with and get others at decent prices. I can't see used games ever being banned, however. They can consider it all they want but I don't think any major company would dare implement it lest they risk alienating their customers.

Heres a question if all consoles implement the banning second hand sales of gaming and gamers are really really hesitant of buying games at launch ( cause if the game turns out to be crap and they cannot sell or exchange the thing) so much so that game sales overall takes a huge beating I wonder what publishers will blame next ?

@Darkreaper_1 I have little sympathy for companies that put out a bad product, but regardless of the quality of the product, do they not have the right to the profit from the purchase? A get you, good games make more money in most cases, but they don

@jaspermur Someone always tries to make this same brilliant argument. Games are not in the same category as cars, homes, or any other physical media you buy. In spite of the fact that it is on a disc it is computer software and should be look at in the same light as a copy of Windows 7 or Norton Anti-Virus. Consoles are nothing more than gaming PCs. Physical merchandise is devalued with time and use whereas if you buy software it is the same for you as it was for the person who bought it day one in the shrink wrap. It isn

If Any any console supporting blocking second hand games I will officially quit gaming. With over priced dlcs, on disc dlc, crap short SP campaigns ( most of the time) and horrible shoehorned MP , season pass for DLC before the game is even out yet ( Saints Row 3 and Max Payne 3). This would be the straw that broke the camels back for me.

@lance_7 Of course you will and i'm not saying or have said you won't. What i am saying is if companies make a quality game then there are going to be less copies available for sale second hand. You are never going to 100% get rid of used games sales but speaking for myself if i really enjoy a game i'll keep it, if i don't i'll put it on eBay. And speaking to my mates i know the majority of them think the same. Quality of products does make a difference when it comes to sales and second hand sales for pretty much everything let alone games. You can't say quality doesn't or won't make a difference.

Also a lot of companies are coming out and attacking the very people they want to buy their products. They are pretty much "biting the hands that feed them" and with a lot of companies i believe it's pure greed. They're not even attempting to sympathising with the consumer or even explain with any details their claims that second hands sales are hurting their profits to an extreme extent they are claiming. They are making millions upon millions of pounds profit (profit meaning after they've covered all their expenses) then coming out and downright attacking us for trying to save money by buying second hand games. If they used facts and figure to back up their arguments or make their case then i think people would be more receptive as nobody wants a company to go out of business. As mentioned before on this thread i don't hear Honda, Ford or any car company coming out complaining about the used car market "stealing their profits". I don't hear Sony, Panasonic or Samsung complaining about second hand electronic product sales. I've yet to hear any company complain about second hand sales for any product other than computer games. So what makes computer games so different?

@jinoz321 I get what you are saying and we aren

@lance_7 So Budget Rent Car selling used car are just a flaw in the system? When did the idea that games buyers must always pay the publisher become normal? My house was used, my cars have all be used, and other stuff in my house was secondary market. According to you I should have pay a fee to Ford and other companies because I purchase their products used. If it was not for used market, I would have not bought Halo Reach. Odst was ok but it took me buying the old games to hook me into the series. The same with Mass Effect. Then you state the prices SHOULD come down if the publishers block the secondary market. That will happen when Master Chief shows his face all through a game.

@Fryboy101 Exactly. All it is are greedy people calling companies greedy for trying to make a profit, which is the point of business. If the business isn

@lance_7 Okay, I'll bite. Besides the plethora of games from generations passed and titles from up and coming indie developers I doubt I'll be forced to adapt or "fade away." There's nothing in my posts that are anti-digital, or against changing technology. I'm more than happy to support a developer who treats me as a human instead of an account number. Even as I go on against Steam, I do enjoy many of Valve's titles and all of the freebies that they give to paying customers. One idea that I've had running through my head goes something like this: What stops publishers from purchasing interest in businesses like GameStop? OR Can EA not offer incentives to trade used games directly back to them for a discount? How about opening their own brick & mortar stores - right across the street from GameStop? If the market makes billions, why not join 'em instead of attacking folks like you and I? See, the industry is acting like there's only one solution and that solution is to brute force us into submission. There's no adapting to markets and no creativity what so ever.

If next-gen blocks used games Im done buying systems. I dont know about others, but Im tired of all these practices that only take away my rights as a consumer. I hope that those stores that support secondhand sales dont carry systems that block used games, maybe this will send a message to the companies that this is not the way to go. Think about it: if Gamestop for example, didnt carry the Xbox 720 at all and refused to take trades on its games, M$ would lose a TON of money and sales because used and new on the shelf next to each other compliment each other and give customers more choice. This debate is really getting old and is dividing the gaming community greatly. Why should gaming only have to be for those that can afford 60$ a week to play games?

I see the logic in what they are doing but at the same time it worries me. On more than one occasion I have found out about a game and wanted to play it but the problem was it had been out so long that it would be a pain in the ass to find a new copy. Most of my games bear the mark of the used but that was because of a lack of funds and also that I didn't know about the whole game dev not getting the money for my purchase.

all you posters are only looking at it from YOUR perspective. Look at it from developers. they're losing money over people like you going out and specifically buying used games. there are people who claim "we should support the developer!" well how is buying a used game, which puts no money back to the developer, supporting them? without that money, they wouldn't be able to continually bring out more games for you to play. so by moaning that they're in the wrong, you're making yourselves look like greedy consumers who feel they have a say in EVERYTHING that is made or developed. in reality, these companies could easily say "We're not gonna make any more games"

"But in theory, you could see it the other way, because a lot of companies making games today are struggling based on SECOND-HAND SALES," Bach said. "So on the positive side, you could see more games being created because of this, and also more new IPs, because there'd be a bigger market for games that don't have, for instance, multiplayer. There could be awesome single-player-only games, which you can't really do these days because people just PIRATE THEM, which is sad." This does not compute. He blames 'piracy' for the decline in single-player games, then says if 'second-hand sales' are quashed developers will make more single-player games. Piracy =/= second-hand sales. :/ If second-hand sales are quashed, 'piracy' will still exist, so if that really is the reason for a decline of single-player games, that's not going to change the situation, now is it? Get your argument straight, Mr. Bach. You can't have it both ways. :/

[quote="EA puppet"]The only thing I know is that people are not doing it to be evil and stupid; it's about trying to create some benefits for consumers."[/quote]

"Bach says blocking used games may not be a bad thing." Uh, yeah it would be a bad thing. If we didn't have used games, our retro consoles and games are worthless and useless if they blocked games off. This would affect new consoles too if people ended up buying a console that can't play ANY games unless if you pay $100-300+ for sealed copies. Not to mention, it makes things VERY inconvenient for gamers, not because they can't buy old games, but the fact they can't sell games they don't like or use trade-ins where gamers can use that money from that used game to buy NEW games. Jeez... these devs already got the money for when the game was NEW. What more do they want?

@jinoz321 You don

Where is the benefit to the consumer when he/she buys a new game at full retail price, discovers it's a piece of sh!t, can't return it and can't sell it? Have that happen a couple of times and the piece of sh!t console it runs on will be chucked on ebay. The first thought that comes in to my mind when I buy a new game that sucks is: "I can't believe I paid $60/£40 for this!" Make the retail price cheaper and that pain is less. If the game is good, then the trade-in value probably won't be worth surrendering it for. Bottom line: pressure on devs to make games worth buying and keeping. The sh1t will still get traded.

This issue will be the sole reason I buy next gen or not.... It's that big of a deal.

@ALCHEMYSTO I don

@lance_7 you've said your piece and no one here is agreeing with it. At this point you're just pushing intelligent comments to the bottom. I've never once had a problem selling used PC games I no longer wanted. It doesn't matter how old they are, if I want to off load my PC games I have ebay, Amazon, and local flea markets to do as I please with my own property. As well, not all PC gamers are "smiles & sunshine" with Steam and Origin. It's anti consumer no matter which platform it's implemented on and the practice needs to be nipped in the bud where ever it pops up. As a consumer I am the only one who can stand up for my own rights. Period. Why in the world would I expect EA or Activision to do the right thing??????

*sigh* and here we go again... the only new thing i read in this article is "[no new innovative games/IPs] because people just pirate them, which is sad." buying used games = pirating?? well Mr Bach, Sir, for you it's CAPTAIN doubleBU then, savvy :-p

@Jedilink109 How is this not punishing the store? Basically they are preventing the store from being able to sale the product. It isn

I still don't understand this whole concept of punishing the gamers. Punish the stores who are selling these used games instead. They are the ones creating the problem not the consumer. Punishing the consumer for being a consumer sounds like one of the most horrendously AWFUL business decisions I've ever heard.

@Darkreaper_1 Come on man, be honest. Go on this site and look up the highest rated games that came out in the last 6 months and if you go to GameStop you will find a used copy of that game on the shelf. Don

I still won't buy a next gen console if it can't play used games.

If you make a decent enough game then the majority of people will keep it. So how about you spend less time turning out crappy, buggy, same-as-every-other-game (mainly FPS's) games then tagging on a load of DLC on the day of release or a month after the initial release of the game itself? Adam Badowski has hit the nail on the head. Companies need to make a game worth buying and worth keeping. I don't feel sorry if you're "losing out". You make millions upon millions of pounds profit and because you're losing out due to your 4th/5th/11th sequel of a game series you fancy having a little cry and attacking the very people who buy your products and keep you in a job.

I know these developers and publishers need to make money to keep making games, but blocking used games will only hurt them in the end. I can't count how many series I've enjoyed because my first introduction to them was because of a used game, or I was loaned a game. ( remember, banning of used games will also make trading games impossible, unless they make up some crazy system where you can let people on your friends list "borrow" a game... interesting) The only real way to eliminate used games sales is to go all digital. The problem with this "solution" is stated in the article; If I spend X amount of dollars on games per year, that's it. No used games means fewer games I purchase to fit that budget. I'll be less willing to try out a new game than picking up the next sequel to an established franchise. Then again, by the time the industry goes this route, demos will probably be set up the way Nintendo does on the 3DS. Pretty lengthy with a cap on how many times you can play them.

@ALCHEMYSTO I

@kohle36 Honestly, as much as I

Why is it that the consumer has to suffer with regards to used game sales? It's not our fault that GameStop provides a service for us, if you want to deal with the second hand sales of games then cut a deal with those who specialize in second hand sales. I don't see car companies complaining about used car sales and how they hurt the car industry. Here's a thought, game developers, make a game where we actually get what we paid for, no more overpriced/on-disc DLC, no more online access codes, and quit rehashing the same crap year after year (*cough*CALLOFDUTY*cough*). Put time and effort into your work and I will be more inclined to pay full price instead of waiting 6 months to buy it half off, or used for that matter. Quit pretending this is the consumer's fault, make an effort to put out a quality product and I will make an effort to purchase it new.

@Henninger How is preventing the use of used games on consoles going to kill the gaming industry? Where can I buy used PC games? Steam seems to be doing okay. Origin is alive and kicking. Apple seems to be doing pretty well selling games on the app store. Companies are making tons on Facebook games. None of these have a used game industry, BUT somehow if consoles don

Unless you plan on charging a maximum of $30 for new games upon the day of release, there is no "benefit" to anyone outside of the company that sells it. I'm so sick of these stupid articles. "Hey, this dude over here thinks it's awesome too!" or "This fella over here thinks it's not so awesome." Gamespot just likes to get us all riled up over the subject every 3-4 days, me thinks.

@lance_7 Keep in mind though that we're talking about IPs. Nike and Ford actually design their own products, even if they then outsource the labour for their assembly (whether or not those labour practices are fair is a different discussion entirely). In the gaming industry, publishers essentially act as investors (as you pointed out), leaving the creation of the product up to developers (occasionally interfering only to make the product more profitable in their estimation). My point to megakick was that his argument (that resellers are theives because they don't make the product) is equally applicable to publishers. You effectively said the same thing but changed it to the people who 'put the product on the market', conveniently forgetting that resellers are also distributors. I think you also forgot (or failed to understand) that my comment was designed to point out a fault in megakick's argument, not to suggest who is or is not 'entitled' to the profits of a game. He seemed angry at resellers because they profit from games they don't make. I suggested his anger was misplaced owing to his inability to distinguish publishers and developers. But if your concern is for investors in general and their ability to make a profit, as noble a sentiment as that is, it's entirely a different discussion

This is in no way beneficial to the consumer. & lets just say that they go thru with this BS. The gaming companies will not lower the price of the games. & will still nickel & dime us with the BS they call DLC thats already on the disc. So again this will do more harm then good. If M$ & Sony do this they will kill the gaming industry.

It'd be nice to see all new games around the $40-50 range, but let's be honest... even at that price, you'd still have people who'd rather buy it used for $30-35 instead of buying new and supporting the devs because people are cheap, but why shouldn't we be? This economy is terrible and inflation is awful.

@---cipher--- but dlc and such as long as it isn't on disc (sfxtk was rape) it isn't standard(gamers just think they are), therefore you don't have to buy and pay for it. or maybe if gamestop actually paid royalties, then this wouldnt be a problem...