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

Gamestop was there at pawn shops, flea markets and video stores. Don't worry about it everything is going digital soon, even the physical Blockbuster video is no more.

@jsmoke03 Gamers aren't opposed to giving dev's credit, they are opposed to being nickel and dimed to death. We pay 60$ new, DLC, Internet, subscription (if Xbox), etc etc. games are being sold where we pay $60 new and don't apparently own the whole thing, only 90% of it. MP3 now offers DLC "passes" to save money on basic MP components that should be standard. We get it's a business, but consumer rape shouldn't be a business plan. I haven't bought used in over 10 yrs, but with Max Payne's new policy, I'll break that streak if only to piss them off.

F*** off trying to convince us with your BS claims...its not good for the consumer in any way.

This issue is larger than just axing the used game market, if gamers can't lend games out which is a tradition going back to the first gaming consoles, well it's kinda a slap in the face of common logic. I lend my games out to friends all the time, I just borrowed Forza 4 for a month and I'm thinking about buying it... I bring games over to my friends place all the time, I always have but if I can't do all that what's the point in owning the next consoles??? I may as well become a PC gamer but I don't like how they do it anymore on PC, I mean the game are great but I don't trust the net enough to buy anything online.....

i don't get why gamer think they are getting ripped off for paying the developers for developing games...im all for it

@ALCHEMYSTO Consumers are already talking with their dollars. A bunch of them are saying we are willing to buy and play your game, we just don

Blocking used games can be very beneficial... to developers pockets. Seriously, if they worry so much about not making money off used games why don't they come up with a way to buy games back from people and then re-sell them?

This nonsense is based on the assumption that players will buy new once they kill the used game market. I don't know about the rest of you, but the day used games are done away with is the day my game purchasing drops to 3 or 4 a year, if that. Maybe I'll just find something else to do, like read a book. On things for certain, if they think they can screw the consumer over and make MORE money thry're in for a rude awakening.

@TruthTellers The logic behind single-player games improving without the used market is simply that publishers will be willing to invest more in them if the fear of the market being flooded with used copies of them wasn

Stop trying to push this garbage on us. Blocking used games is a terrible idea. Mark my words, it will destroy the console industry, no doubt in my mind.

@kohle36 Let

I doubt that single player games would improve in quality if used games were blocked. It's more time consuming and requires more resources like writing a story, hiring voice actors, programming AI, etc. This is why so many games are built around multiplayer today, it's easier to make. A few years ago DICE made a game called MIrror's Edge. It didn't have any multiplayer, it's campaign was about 8 hours long, and its story was boring. I don't think anybody bothered to pirate Mirror's Edge.

Yes and Ford / Chevy / Jeep / Toyoda / every other car company doesn't make a dime off used sales either, and you see them boasting the re-sale value of their cars on "their" own commercials. Since when is the gaming industry greedier and the car industry?

I wonder if he read the article "Crysis dev backtracks..." yet?

I'm waiting for his statement tomorrow, "Just kidding".

@megakick Except that you're conflating publishers with developers. The way that the industry is currently structured, your example should read something more like: imagine you buy tickets to a yankees game and it's ticket master that gets the money, not the team (this isn't how it actually works, but if baseball worked like the gaming industry, that's pretty much it). What you seemingly fail to understand is that the publishers don't actually make anything either. All they do is provide a means to access a show that was planned and built by someone else: the developer. Except that they (the people who actually made the game) are paid a one time fee and relinquish most intellectual property rights to the publisher, meaning that all future sales go to the publisher, even though all they did was provide some upfront cash to make the game. Under your own argument then, publishers are just as much thieves as resellers. They provide access to a game made entirely by someone else, and garnish money from someone else's work.

I still call BS. There was a good article on Yahoo not too long ago which mentioned Plants vs Zombies. The game cost $3 on iPhone and $15 on the Vita. Why? Because Vita is a dedicated gaming devise, to which people are accustomed to spending more money on. I'll add the url to the bottom of this post. Point is, no matter how they sugar coat this it's taking something away from the consumer with no guarantee that the return will be worth it. I'm exclusively a PC gamer and have heard horror stories about people being locked out of all their purchases on Steam and Origin. Billing disputes, hacking, etc. While I have no pity on hackers, I assure you that you do NOT want to hand over your game collection to the good will of corporate America. Server problems? Company goes out of business? Who knows. Not too long ago PC gamers were locked out of several of their Ubisoft games for a week due to server maintenance. Couldn't play legally purchased titles AT ALL, even single play. Yeah, you certainly "nailed it" Bach. URL: http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/why-end-60-video-game-near-181412574.html

@ ALCHEMYSTO -

what the hell do these companies think we s*** money and can't afford all these expensive games every time they announce it . i would not even mind spending the money for a brand new game but i think the developers need to take there time making a good quality game instead releasing a broken game into the community .

Is this a joke too? Probably not, but we'll see tomorrow :P

@ ALCHEMYSTO What makes you think you can even scratch the surface of reaching out to

"if you want more diverse games, then it's a more positive thing than negative. " Actually no. People will only buy games they can afford and are already familiar with. Trying something new will become a risk. SO new Ips won't flourish, and garbage that has been being milked over and over to us the last 15 years will only sell.

"There could be awesome single-player-only games, which you can't really do these days because people just pirate them, which is sad." I think this guy is a little confused and is getting his messages mixed up. If they pirate them now, they'll still pirate them then. Blocking used games is not equal to stopping piracy. Nice one.

Even if there are more single-player games, people will who pirate them now will still pirate them then. It'll just be a little bit harder. What he fails to understand is that it is a money issue, not a creative issue. Maybe if games dropped in price dramatically as a result of this, say, to $30 or even $25 (which will likely not happen, but rather the opposite) then it could be beneficial, except in the case of having games locked to one console. @megakick: Some people don't have the money to be able to not worry about $60 games, which seems to be the industry standard now. Gaming has become a very expensive hobby if you're serious about it, and used games are keeping the costs down for many people. Between $60 and controllers costing $40 or $50, the industry is soaking up our money and then coming up with new ways to hose us even more. If this continues to happen, PCs are going to become radically cheaper, stripped down to Steam Machines and many gamers will migrate there.

"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." That's the dumbest logic I've ever read. How is it that you take away the ability to buy old games that were good, they magically make developers want to make new games that are better. Poppycock. If the fact that they have to compete with their older titles in new titles doesn't make them want to make better games NOW, that's their fault. The main reason there is a used game industry now, besides being cheaper, is because new games aren't worth buying anymore. You want us to support your new games, give us a damn good reason too. Don't jack up the price and drop the quality.

So you would they rather not have the content on the disc at all? Technically they are saving you time. How long would it take to download a string of code compared to a map, character and such? They could sell you the striped down civic dx and have you buy the parts and have you wait as they put on the parts you want? Would that be OK? If you don't like their tatic don't buy the game, if enough don't buy it they will have to change. Don't buy used your stealing from the publisher and making the resller rich. Where would Lamestop be without resell? OUT OF BUSINESS.

They sort of do if you buy new you get content that you would otherwise have to pay for if you buy used, Online pass, Skins, Weapons, Maps. What the publisher has to do is reward consumers who buy new with content worthy of buying new. Games cost money to make when you buy used the publisher interprets it as free admission taking funds away from them. Theme parks, concerts, ball games have overhead fees so do publishers so why is it ok for retailers to sell used making more money then selling new and the publisher gets nothing for making the product? It would be like if you bought counterfeit tickets to see the Yankees, who gets the money? Not the Yankess the counterfeiter gets the money. IMO Publishers see Retail reselling as legal counterfeiting. Next step to counter reselling is to go digital like music, it will happen. Origin, Steam, Xbox live, PSN are examples.

Oh sure, beneficial for YOU, maybe. If the new consoles do block used games, then at LEAST make the games less expensive. If not, prepare for another industry crash, because once word of this gets out to the common people, no one will want to have anything to do with consoles anymore.

This may be the first logical thing I have read on the "blocking used games" issue. "More diverse games", i'm all for it.Although, as I have stated in a past thread.It will come down to buying titles that people already know and love VS I know nothing about that title, so I don't know if i'm going to take that chance. But to debate.. I still do not feel that "blocking used games" will make developers make unique/diverse IPs.Why would they wait for used game blocking to do that?Gamers know if they make a unique IP that is good.We'll buy it. So using "blocking used games" as an excuse to why many developers make crap games now is null. @RadView that has to do with EA not Dice.

I remember when devs were pushing digital downloads as it " would lower costs and game prices " and here we are still paying full price for digital software. I also find it funny that those that are against used games just so happen to be releasing crappy games.

I want quality single-player... If corking used sales brings more high-quality, bug-free single player games to market, then that is a BIG WIN. I can dream can't I? (I buy new, but never pay $60 on release day!)

Ofcoarse he said that, BF3 uses the Online pass scheme.

Death wish?

Removing resale value is not going to increase sales.

It's about trying to create some benefits for consumers? Yeah no...it's about the bottom line. If that happens to benefit consumers, then that's just a happy coincidence. Benefits to the consumer are only as relevant as their ability to increase profits. Does this guy think we were born yesterday?

I grow weary of this debate. I do find it interesting that Laura once stole a sandwich from Peter Molyneux though. Did he brag about all the great ingredients it had, and how it was going to change the world of sandwiches....only for you to find out it was just bolonga and cheese?

I think the writing is on the wall. The used games market is going the way of DVD rentals and Blockbuster. I don't know if I'd call it progress, but it is just the business evolving. Gamers are slowly willing to adapt as the business takes more babysteps every year towards accepting that you actually do not own the game you buy. DLC, on-disc DLC, online passes, always online, limited installs etc are all just paving the way. With the next generation of consoles, you won't be able to take a game to a friend's house to play without a gold membership of some sort paid monthly/annually. Your console will be a brick unless connected and signed in, your game will be useless unless your online, signed in, and payments up to date, etc. Count me out.

Rather than restrict the consoles themselves, let the Developer decide whether to sell the game through digital download only or on disc. Problem solved.

I still think it's funny that game developers make a bit deal about used games but you don't see the movie or the music industry complaining about used stuff. If they got rid of used games then I would just buy less games because lot of games just aren't worth the price. New games are just way to expesive. If I don't know the game is worth it then I may wait and buy it used to try it out.

What he said is a little more agreeable than what most devs are saying, as he's at least alluding to the fact that the cost to play for most gamers is increasing. If the no "used games" method did in fact mean a reduction in price of about 10-20% for new games then you would have an easier time selling the concept to customers. We all know that absolutely isn't going to happen. Even if digital distribution becomes the main channel by which games are bought, it's still not going to drive prices down. So nice dream DICE guy, but that's not in line with the reality of this industry.

@ Marky360 From another story on this site, GameStop posted sales of $2.62 billion in used games last year. None of that money went to the people that actually made the games, it all went to GameStop; $2.62 billion. Let

@ strayfies What company exactly did your lack of support take down? Last time I checked EA and Activision were still churning out games. The majority of gamers will never even know these comments exist. Of the ones that do, a miniscule number of them will decide to not buy games based on the comments of one individual that works with hundreds of other individuals to create a game. Far be it from me to deter anyone from taking a stand for something they believe in. Yet it seems to me that the only one being deprived of anything is you if you miss out on some of the best games on the market because you disagree with remarks made by one of the many people who work at a company.

I don't think most gaming companies understand that most ppl buy used because they CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY NEW!!! If you just take away used games, sales of your new games won't increase those ppl just won't be able to buy games at all. If anything sales of new games will decrease because there are many gamers who trade there old games in to buy there new ones with out being able to do that chances are they won't be able to get the new game at all. I know there are instances where I've bought a game used that I never would have considered buying new so if even if you got rid of the used market I'd still would not have bought that game new I would have just not bought it.

blocking used games is not a bad thing? you know,when you putt it like that, me going out simply not buying your games is not a bad thing ether.

To anyone wondering - yes it's actually quite satisfying to stop buying games from certain developers / publishers, based on the antagonistic regard for their customers. You've still got plenty of games made by *gamers* and not businessmen. I tried it years ago and haven't looked back - saved myself a fortune, too. The remarkable thing about this situation is, you DO have the power to bring them down. They aren't immune to us, nor should they feel comfortable making careless, greedy remarks.

@ ALCHEMYSTO Yes, a hit list will do it! Because we all know the masses will simply not buy Call of Duty, Madden, and Battle Field

@yampi No, the games will be linked to your account, not your console. You pull up your account on your new console and you'd have access to your games.

Warning Unpopular Comment. If you are sensitive don

People act like these companies are idiotic and out of touch. Guess what, they simply have more data than you do to make an informed decision. They see the numbers when a game is only two months on the market and sales numbers are less than expected with only 500,000 copies sold but 750,000 gamer tags have achievements/ trophies for the game. It isn

There's very few games I buy as soon as they come out. Most of the time, I just wait until they've dropped in price or buy used. That means no matter what happens, the developers are rarely getting most of my money. It's very rare I want a game that I believe is worth $60 brand new, and this is coming from someone that used to pay $100 for brand new SNES games. Even then, I might have bought 1 single new full price SNES game, the rest were always used.