THQ gives the middle finger to purchasers of used games

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=261330

For a shooter or fighting game (a wrestling game is technically a fighting game), I really don't consider online play to be "additional content" as he describes it, it's really just a standard feature these days. I wonder if THQ realizes that most people sell their games to fund the purchase of more new games. Aside from that, I really don't understand what all the complaining is from all the publishers about people purchasing used games. After all, pretty much any nonconsumable product can be purchased used, but you don't see car or furniture manufacturers throwing a hissy fit over it.

They think that if a person can not buy used then they would get their game new. I know many of my used game are of those I would not pay $20 more.

They think that if a person can not buy used then they would get their game new. I know many of my used game are of those I would not pay $20 more.

wiouds

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=261330

For a shooter or fighting game (a wrestling game is technically a fighting game), I really don't consider online play to be "additional content" as he describes it, it's really just a standard feature these days. I wonder if THQ realizes that most people sell their games to fund the purchase of more new games. Aside from that, I really don't understand what all the complaining is from all the publishers about people purchasing used games. After all, pretty much any nonconsumable product can be purchased used, but you don't see car or furniture manufacturers throwing a hissy fit over it.

UT_Wrestler

This thread is just like the THQ: Buying used games is cheating thread that is 15 pages long already.

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=261330

For a shooter or fighting game (a wrestling game is technically a fighting game), I really don't consider online play to be "additional content" as he describes it, it's really just a standard feature these days. I wonder if THQ realizes that most people sell their games to fund the purchase of more new games. Aside from that, I really don't understand what all the complaining is from all the publishers about people purchasing used games. After all, pretty much any nonconsumable product can be purchased used, but you don't see car or furniture manufacturers throwing a hissy fit over it.

I noticed this trend with EA and Mass Effect 2. They had a one-time code for "DLC" which should have been in the game to begin with. This is a disgusting money grab, and I genuinely hope these companies suffer enormously for their greed.

I noticed this trend with EA and Mass Effect 2. They had a one-time code for "DLC" which should have been in the game to begin with. This is a disgusting money grab, and I genuinely hope these companies suffer enormously for their greed.

reason58

As someone who played the hell out of Baldur's Gate 1, 2, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment: you have no idea. I wanted to hope for the best, but I knew EA's reputation.

I noticed this trend with EA and Mass Effect 2. They had a one-time code for "DLC" which should have been in the game to begin with. This is a disgusting money grab, and I genuinely hope these companies suffer enormously for their greed.

reason58

I think it is not that bad to reward someone to buy new with extra that are not apart on the disk if you buy use.

But I do not agree with kick those they buy used in the nut. Games with those play are at best $20 buy new or used.

I will support game companies when they do not do cheap and cheating actions.

wiouds

My issue is that, I do not think this content is "extra". This is part of the game that they take out, and hide behind a one-time code.

Used book stores didn't maim the book industry. Libraries didn't slaughter them.

Blockbuster did not destroy the movie market.

These producers are being nothing short of greedy.

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

I think it is not that bad to reward someone to buy new with extra that are not apart on the disk if you buy use.

But I do not agree with kick those they buy used in the nut. Games with those play are at best $20 buy new or used.

I will support game companies when they do not do cheap and cheating actions.

reason58

My issue is that, I do not think this content is "extra". This is part of the game that they take out, and hide behind a one-time code.

Used book stores didn't maim the book industry. Libraries didn't slaughter them.

Blockbuster did not destroy the movie market.

These producers are being nothing short of greedy.

Because development costs for books is millions of dollars. Also books retail for 60$?

Not to defend THQ but PA probably has said it best

They didn't say much of anything there. Even used sales help boost the original producer in the same way videos on youtube universally result in increased record sales. Exposure = money. And this is all beside the point really. They are blatantly spiiting in the face of the first-sale doctrine with this move. They need to be stopped.

EDIT: To you first point, btw, it does cost millions for book producers. Marketting, distribution, and more is a huge amount of money. The actual production cost of the book is the least of the expenses.

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

I think it is not that bad to reward someone to buy new with extra that are not apart on the disk if you buy use.

But I do not agree with kick those they buy used in the nut. Games with those play are at best $20 buy new or used.

I will support game companies when they do not do cheap and cheating actions.

reason58

My issue is that, I do not think this content is "extra". This is part of the game that they take out, and hide behind a one-time code.

Used book stores didn't maim the book industry. Libraries didn't slaughter them.

Blockbuster did not destroy the movie market.

These producers are being nothing short of greedy.

They didn't say much of anything there. Even used sales help boost the original producer in the same way videos on youtube universally result in increased record sales. Exposure = money. And this is all beside the point really. They are blatantly spiiting in the face of the first-sale doctrine with this move. They need to be stopped.

EDIT: To you first point, btw, it does cost millions for book producers. Marketting, distribution, and more is a huge amount of money. The actual production cost of the book is the least of the expenses.

I can kinda see where the game developers and publishers are coming from, but I think this is a terrible idea. I think offering free DLC to those who buy the games new is a good idea if they want to encourage new game sells (although it would take a bit more than Chris Masters to sway me. Seriously guys, Chris Masters? Might as well offer B. Brian Blair*). Punishing those who buy used by removing essential parts of the game is a bad idea. I read Tycho's comments on this over at Penny Arcade. Can't say I'm comfortable with equating Right of First Sale to theft.

*And if THQ really wants to sway me to buy their game new they should, oh, make a wrestling game that's worth a crap again.

Part of the reason why they can sell games for $60 is because people have the ability to sell that game when they are done to recoup some of their cost. If they circumvent the first-sale doctrine then it decreases the value of the game to the consumer. This means either less overall sales or a lower profit margin. They are being short-sighted and they are going to feel the burn.

I noticed this trend with EA and Mass Effect 2. They had a one-time code for "DLC" which should have been in the game to begin with. This is a disgusting money grab, and I genuinely hope these companies suffer enormously for their greed.

reason58

Yet another reason this current console generation is an absolute failure.

So I bought the game new, yet I'm still punished for not having my console online in order to get this "DLC" that should have been in the game to begin with.

Thanks for nothing, a-holes. God I hate this generation...

My 360 isn't internet capable so this really has no effect on me.

Wii isn't about online

PC doesn't have used. So really, means nothing to me. A jerk move by developers trying to stifle out legitimate buisness practices due to greed.

I noticed this trend with EA and Mass Effect 2. They had a one-time code for "DLC" which should have been in the game to begin with. This is a disgusting money grab, and I genuinely hope these companies suffer enormously for their greed.

reason58

Ah yes. Leaving out a character and content in the game. This screwed me over even though I bought the game new because I can't go online with my xbox. So I'm punished for not paying a hundred dollars for a microsoft router.

Dude, I don't think most of you understand the economics of the video game industry today.

Most games lose money. Profitable developers can close with a single bad game, and publishers are scared to fund things that aren't proven hits.

Most games have a shelf-life shorter than almost every other form of media. Sure, used books exist, but people still buy The Great Gatsby or Great Expectations after the author has been dead for decades. How many copies did the greatest video games from two years ago sell last month? You think people are still buying Bioshock?

I could go on and on, and yeah, it is a bummer for the consumer, but they don't care. If you don't buy the game new, you aren't a customer of THQ. They don't want to pay for you to use their servers when you have given them nothing.

Dude, I don't think most of you understand the economics of the video game industry today.

Most games lose money. Profitable developers can close with a single bad game, and publishers are scared to fund things that aren't proven hits.

Most games have a shelf-life shorter than almost every other form of media. Sure, used books exist, but people still buy The Great Gatsby or Great Expectations after the author has been dead for decades. How many copies did the greatest video games from two years ago sell last month? You think people are still buying Bioshock?

If you don't buy the game new, you aren't a customer of THQ. They don't want to pay for you to use their servers when you have given them nothing.

AtomicTangerine

I'm not going to necessarily dismiss your point, but a few things need to be cleared up.

I might be able to shed a tear for the poor, poor game companies if they didn't benefit so mightily from the secondhand sellers that they so despise. The increased exposure, the free advertising, global retailers pushing their product, two major console producers providing alternative revenue streams through DLC, all that going for them and I'm supposed to feel bad about buying and selling secondhand?

I don't think so.

[QUOTE="reason58"]

I noticed this trend with EA and Mass Effect 2. They had a one-time code for "DLC" which should have been in the game to begin with. This is a disgusting money grab, and I genuinely hope these companies suffer enormously for their greed.

Pixel-Pirate

Ah yes. Leaving out a character and content in the game. This screwed me over even though I bought the game new because I can't go online with my xbox. So I'm punished for not paying a hundred dollars for a microsoft router.

My point exactly. I've already payed hundreds of dollors buying the damn machine, and yet I'm not still restricted on the games and content that are available. Download only games and DLC are the worst thing to happen to gaming ever. (I can at least understand it somewhat for the small time games that couldn't find the shelf space in stores, but for major releases? Absolutely unacceptable. I'm looking at you, Sonic 4, you money-grubbing hog.)

Dude, I don't think most of you understand the economics of the video game industry today.

Most games lose money. Profitable developers can close with a single bad game, and publishers are scared to fund things that aren't proven hits.

Most games have a shelf-life shorter than almost every other form of media. Sure, used books exist, but people still buy The Great Gatsby or Great Expectations after the author has been dead for decades. How many copies did the greatest video games from two years ago sell last month? You think people are still buying Bioshock?

I could go on and on, and yeah, it is a bummer for the consumer, but they don't care. If you don't buy the game new, you aren't a customer of THQ. They don't want to pay for you to use their servers when you have given them nothing.

AtomicTangerine

Game developers are the only people who try to stop legal legitimate reselling of your own property.

20TH century fox has never gone after me for selling a used copy of a movie I have. IKEA doesn't punish me for selling my worn down used lazy boy. Toyota doesn't punish me for selling my used 10 year old car.

Why should game developers punish me for selling used games while they continue to raise the price of games to absurd levels?

Because they can.

It is the only interactive medium, so that makes it possible to circumvent the law.

Hey!

Part of the reason why they can sell games for $60 is because people have the ability to sell that game when they are done to recoup some of their cost. If they circumvent the first-sale doctrine then it decreases the value of the game to the consumer. This means either less overall sales or a lower profit margin. They are being short-sighted and they are going to feel the burn.

reason58

Bestbuy and Target may be going into the used gae dealing too. So more company are going into used game dealing as more company try to fight used game dealing.

Because the margin is incredibly huge relative to new games. Double and in some case triple digit percentage profits on used games blows away the single digit they get on new games every time.

[QUOTE="AtomicTangerine"]

Dude, I don't think most of you understand the economics of the video game industry today.

Most games lose money. Profitable developers can close with a single bad game, and publishers are scared to fund things that aren't proven hits.

Most games have a shelf-life shorter than almost every other form of media. Sure, used books exist, but people still buy The Great Gatsby or Great Expectations after the author has been dead for decades. How many copies did the greatest video games from two years ago sell last month? You think people are still buying Bioshock?

I could go on and on, and yeah, it is a bummer for the consumer, but they don't care. If you don't buy the game new, you aren't a customer of THQ. They don't want to pay for you to use their servers when you have given them nothing.

Pixel-Pirate

Game developers are the only people who try to stop legal legitimate reselling of your own property.

20TH century fox has never gone after me for selling a used copy of a movie I have. IKEA doesn't punish me for selling my worn down used lazy boy. Toyota doesn't punish me for selling my used 10 year old car.

Why should game developers punish me for selling used games while they continue to raise the price of games to absurd levels?

Games are not movies or furniture or used cars. Please read what I wrote.

Most video games have a shelf-life of only a few months. After that point, they have made the vast majority of they money they will EVER make. For example, I just bought Starship Troopers on Blu-Ray. It sat next to a bunch of other movies at Target that were more than a decade old. How often have you gone to a major retailer, or heck, even Gamestop, and found a game on the shelf that was from the 90s and was still more than half the price of most new releases? Outside of the super hits like Starcraft, you won't find a game more than 5 years old, and almost all of them will be within the last 2.

Also, I think some of you are confused with what they are trying to stop exactly. They aren't as worried about the guy buying the game used 3 years down the line. What they are worried about is the guy who buys a game for $55 used instead of $60 new.

PC doesn't have used.

Pixel-Pirate

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

They think that if a person can not buy used then they would get their game new. I know many of my used game are of those I would not pay $20 more.

UT_Wrestler

I have bought more then 10 games this year, and most of them under $15.

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"][QUOTE="wiouds"]

I have bought more then 10 games this year, and most of them under $15.

morrowindnic

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

PC doesn't have used.

Gammit10

After the cd-key is used the game is pretty useless for online play. And it's impossible to sell a game that's attached to steam, unless you sell the whole account.

If you can't afford video games then maybe you should look into a different hobby like stamps.

What does THQ have other than de Blob again? I seem to forget any relevance they have in the industry.

This whole "developers get screwed" argument that these companies try make is nonsensical seeing as how the devs have already gotten their money for their game before the customer ever walks into the store. Every single copy that is sitting on a shelf (new or used) in any retail outlet has been paid for already buy the store thats selling it. If you walk into Gamestop and buy Halo Reach new and Mafia II used you arent giving microsoft $60 and Gamestop $55, you are giving Gamestop $115. Gamestop has to buy games from the dev/publisher before they can stock their shelves with it.

The dev makes money by selling the games to retailers, and retailers make money by ordering the games at one price and charging the retail price. Thats what "Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price" is: The price that the producers tell the retailer to sell it for so they can make some money too.

Thats the supply chain people, other companies/industries its more people involved like wholesalers.

I've written on this issue before and I'm not about to rehash my arguments and get into the same debates but I do think the issue is a bit more complicated than some think, especially when we start comparing other used goods to gaming. The used game market is a unique entity in retail, so while consumers have the right to resell their games, I wouldn't be so quick to call game developers and publishers greedy when they claim used game sales often rob them of revenue.

That said, THQ's "solution" is anything but.

I've written on this issue before and I'm not about to rehash my arguments and get into the same debates but I do think the issue is a bit more complicated than some think, especially when we start comparing other used goods to gaming. The used game market is a unique entity in retail, so while consumers have the right to resell their games, I wouldn't be so quick to call game developers and publishers greedy when they claim used game sales often rob them of revenue.

That said, THQ's "solution" is anything but.

Grammaton-Cleric

I wouldn't say it's unique. It's at least comparable to music, and the music labels gave up the "buying used is taking money away from us" argument long ago.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

I've written on this issue before and I'm not about to rehash my arguments and get into the same debates but I do think the issue is a bit more complicated than some think, especially when we start comparing other used goods to gaming. The used game market is a unique entity in retail, so while consumers have the right to resell their games, I wouldn't be so quick to call game developers and publishers greedy when they claim used game sales often rob them of revenue.

That said, THQ's "solution" is anything but.

worlock77

I wouldn't say it's unique. It's at least comparable to music, and the music labels gave up the "buying used is taking money away from us" argument long ago.

I find it laughable that the gaming industry is stumbling into the wrong side of an argument that the recording and motion picture industries have long since moved on from. I agree, nothing here is unique. In fact, the gaming companies have even more streams of revenue that make the other members of Big Content blush.

Its an impressive feat for industry heads to complain about secondhand games while they're obtaining more revenue off an infrastructure that was built for them courtesy of Sony and Microsoft.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

I've written on this issue before and I'm not about to rehash my arguments and get into the same debates but I do think the issue is a bit more complicated than some think, especially when we start comparing other used goods to gaming. The used game market is a unique entity in retail, so while consumers have the right to resell their games, I wouldn't be so quick to call game developers and publishers greedy when they claim used game sales often rob them of revenue.

That said, THQ's "solution" is anything but.

worlock77

I wouldn't say it's unique. It's at least comparable to music, and the music labels gave up the "buying used is taking money away from us" argument long ago.

The used CD market was never anywhere near as prolific as the used game market, largely because the cost differential between the two products is sizeable and thus easier to exploit on the videogame side of things. Yes, used markets exist for other products, but never before has that market been so aggressively pursued and exploited by retailers, many of whom never had any prior interest in selling used movies or games. When major retailers that specialize in new product, such as WalMart and BestBuy, are looking to nab a piece of the used game pie, that fact alone suggests that comparing the used game market to any other isn't entirely fair or accurate.

Again, I'm not suggesting THQ is in the right here but the issue isn't as simple as some are asserting.

I find it laughable that the gaming industry is stumbling into the wrong side of an argument that the recording and motion picture industries have long since moved on from. I agree, nothing here is unique. In fact, the gaming companies have even more streams of revenue that make the other members of Big Content blush.

QuistisTrepe_

Actually, a film has far more revenue streams available to it, starting with the initial box office take, both foreign and domestic, the DVD/Blueray sales, the cable network release, and eventually, selling the broadcasting rights to the free networks, not to mention that since films are not intrinsically tethered to a format or console, they can be released and re-released at will. Also, the price of films and music is much lower than gaming, which affords Gamestop and other retailers plenty of wiggle room when pricing used content while still reaping a healthy profit. The used CD/DVD market was never nearly as profitable because the margins between new product and used was often minimal.

Again, we are talking about very disparate markets, which is why I still think the used game market is largely unique, even if the mentality that propels it is similar.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

I've written on this issue before and I'm not about to rehash my arguments and get into the same debates but I do think the issue is a bit more complicated than some think, especially when we start comparing other used goods to gaming. The used game market is a unique entity in retail, so while consumers have the right to resell their games, I wouldn't be so quick to call game developers and publishers greedy when they claim used game sales often rob them of revenue.

That said, THQ's "solution" is anything but.

Grammaton-Cleric

I wouldn't say it's unique. It's at least comparable to music, and the music labels gave up the "buying used is taking money away from us" argument long ago.

The used CD market was never anywhere near as prolific as the used game market, largely because the cost differential between the two products is sizeable and thus easier to exploit on the videogame side of things. Yes, used markets exist for other products, but never before has that market been so aggressively pursued and exploited by retailers, many of whom never had any prior interest in selling used movies or games. When major retailers that specialize in new product, such as WalMart and BestBuy, are looking to nab a piece of the used game pie, that fact alone suggests that comparing the used game market to any other isn't entirely fair or accurate.

Again, I'm not suggesting THQ is in the right here but the issue isn't as simple as some are asserting.

Dude, I recall seeing used CDs in major retailers such as F.Y.E. around 10 years or so ago. So no, the used games market isn't entirely unique.

Again, we are talking about very disparate markets, which is why I still think the used game market is largely unique, even if the mentality that propels it is similar.

Grammaton-Cleric

Gram, I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong. However, what possible obstacles could the gaming industry face that the other members of Big Content don't? If the secondhand business had such a adverse impact upon developers, then why has the gaming industry continued to thrive and grow, so much so that it has exceeded the motion picture industry since 2003? The arguments against used games just don't add up, nor do they change reality- that the relationship between the secondhand market and the developers is mutually exclusive. Neither party can exist without the other.

Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Gamestop, Amazon, eBay, and Gamefly, have all built and provided the infrastructure upon which the games industry has used to print money.

I worked at a major music chain for a few years a decade ago. Their used section was enormous, and the markup was amazing. They easily pulled in around 50-100% profit on the used CDs, and they had hundreds of thousands in one store alone.

Dude, I recall seeing used CDs in major retailers such as F.Y.E. around 10 years or so ago. So no, the used games market isn't entirely unique.

worlock77

I'm not asserting the used game market is entirely unique but rather that there are some disparities between used games and other used markets that should be taken into account.

Gram, I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong. However, what possible obstacles could the gaming industry face that the other members of Big Content don't? If the secondhand business had such a adverse impact upon developers, then why has the gaming industry continued to thrive and grow, so much so that it has exceeded the motion picture industry since 2003? The arguments against used games just don't add up, nor do they change reality- that the relationship between the secondhand market and the developers is mutually exclusive. Neither party can exist without the other.

Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Gamestop, Amazon, eBay, and Gamefly, have all built and provided the infrastructure upon which the games industry has used to print money.

QuistisTrepe_

Firstly, it is debatable that the industry is thriving and growing at this point given the massive layoffs and closures we've seen over the last year. Now, I'm not asserting all of this directly correlates to the used game market but I do think the notion that this industry is healthy and thus not in need of re-examination is a flawed perspective given the recent economic downturn.

As to the fact that the gaming industry now generates more revenue than film, bear in mind that the average cost of a movie ticket is 10 dollars and the average cost of a DVD is about 15 to 20 dollars versus the average cost of a game, which is now between 40 and 60 bucks. The real question is profitability, since raw revenue figures alone don't relate that. Most films make their budget back and enjoy a profit precisely because they enjoy established, multiple revenue streams and much broader windows to rake in said revenue. Games generally have a much faster expiration date which means the first 6 to 8 months is where most of the money can and will be made, thus used game sales certainly cut into that, even if on the other side of the equation they also facilitate some of the purchases.

And yes, to a degree the used game market does buoy the new game market but to what extent is still a mystery until somebody begins tracking data to see just how many new purchases are predicated upon used game trade-ins. If a company like Gamestop could provide data that the used game market is actually helping the sales of new software then that might shut down the critics. However, my initial point remains the same: the used game market is in some ways dissimilar from any used market we've seen before. It's a much more aggressive business model that appears to have become more deeply entrenched than what we've seen with movies, books or CD's. That's really all I'm trying to assert here.

I think they're pretty much screwed if they think that is going to raise their sales. I've bought maybe two new games this year, its just not worth 60$ to me for 90% of the games I want.