First EA, Then It Was Ubisoft, Now It's THQ Charging! A New Dawn

The dominoes, oh how they fall like.....well......dominoes lol

Soon every single company will be charging people who buy used to play online and I welcome it with open arms

I don't know why someone decided that the people who make games shouldn't get any money from it. When you buy a game from a used shop none of the money goes towards the people who made the game.

So why should these people offer online services for free as well?

EA, Ubisoft, and THQ have no problem offering online services for people who buy new, in other words people who support them. If someone buys a new game there is no extra charge at all, it's only when you buy it used that you'll be paying an extra fee.

What I find most interesting in all of this is how many people say "well I'm done buying games from these makers" and for that I have two responses

1. Why do you think that it's wrong for people to be paid for their work

and

2. Since you were buying used you already haven't been giving these companies your money for ages. They haven't missed you in the past and they're not going to start now. By someone saying "I'm not going to buy their games anymore" it means nothing since they don't see your money anyway.

I get new games cheap enough (Amazon) anyway so it doesn't really affect me. Doomtime

Either way it wouldn't because you're buying new

As long as you buy new (and you know, support the company making these games) then this does not change your life at all

I get new games cheap enough (Amazon) anyway so it doesn't really affect me. Doomtime

Okay whoa. Hold on a moment. So if I buy a used game, I will have to pay an extra fee to play that used game online?

Okay whoa. Hold on a moment. So if I buy a used game, I will have to pay an extra fee to play that used game online?

Murj

Yes, 10 dollars for EA and Ubisoft (starting in June) and then THQ is saying 5 dollars (but subject to be raised to ten as well)

I completely support them. They aren't evil. They aren't trying to cheat us out of our money. They just want to be compensated for their hard work and dedication.

[QUOTE="Murj"]

Okay whoa. Hold on a moment. So if I buy a used game, I will have to pay an extra fee to play that used game online?

Jaysonguy

Yes, 10 dollars for EA and Ubisoft (starting in June) and then THQ is saying 5 dollars (but subject to be raised to ten as well)

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

[QUOTE="Murj"]

Okay whoa. Hold on a moment. So if I buy a used game, I will have to pay an extra fee to play that used game online?

Murj

Yes, 10 dollars for EA and Ubisoft (starting in June) and then THQ is saying 5 dollars (but subject to be raised to ten as well)

What are you talking about? How can they charge more money for used when they don't sell it used?

Also yes, SOMEONE ELSE buys that game new then they sell it to a used shop which sells it to you. That means now two customers have had a copy but the company that made the game was only paid for one. Don't you see that?

Also since you bought a used copy that made sure none of the money went to the people who made the game why do you want them to offer you online services as well for free? So you want them to get no money PLUS lose money supporting that game online?

for it. how do they enforce it? do you have to register the game to a system or gamertag? does this mean i couldn't take a copy of a game over to a friend's house and get online with it?

for it. how do they enforce it? do you have to register the game to a system or gamertag? does this mean i couldn't take a copy of a game over to a friend's house and get online with it?

hihatrider

It's linked to the gamertag so if you're signed on somewhere else you're still able to play online.

It's called, THE FIGHT AGAINST PIRACY!

It's called, THE FIGHT AGAINST PIRACY!

LegatoSkyheart

Nope, that's something else

[QUOTE="hihatrider"]

for it. how do they enforce it? do you have to register the game to a system or gamertag? does this mean i couldn't take a copy of a game over to a friend's house and get online with it?

Jaysonguy

It's linked to the gamertag so if you're signed on somewhere else you're still able to play online.

can you transport your gamertag any way besides buying a ridiculous memory card? it would be nice if you could sign in to your gamertag account from any xbox in the same way you can sign into facebook from any computer... i'v been out of the loop for a while so this might be possible.

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

[QUOTE="hihatrider"]

for it. how do they enforce it? do you have to register the game to a system or gamertag? does this mean i couldn't take a copy of a game over to a friend's house and get online with it?

hihatrider

It's linked to the gamertag so if you're signed on somewhere else you're still able to play online.

can you transport your gamertag any way besides buying a ridiculous memory card? it would be nice if you could sign in to your gamertag account from any xbox in the same way you can sign into facebook from any computer... i'v been out of the loop for a while so this might be possible.

You can do it online or you can use a thumb drive

[QUOTE="Murj"]

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

Yes, 10 dollars for EA and Ubisoft (starting in June) and then THQ is saying 5 dollars (but subject to be raised to ten as well)

Jaysonguy

What are you talking about? How can they charge more money for used when they don't sell it used?

Also yes, SOMEONE ELSE buys that game new then they sell it to a used shop which sells it to you. That means now two customers have had a copy but the company that made the game was only paid for one. Don't you see that?

Also since you bought a used copy that made sure none of the money went to the people who made the game why do you want them to offer you online services as well for free? So you want them to get no money PLUS lose money supporting that game online?

In today's climate, people are buying used games because they're cheaper. And new games for 360 and PS3 always start out being too expensive and for titles that sell stupidly well like MW2, the prices don't drop very often. Making people pay this charge for used games to go online then will not make people buy the newer version straight away as it will most likely be too steeply priced. They'll likely be left selling the same amount of new games and having a smaller community in their online play. They could also lose money through the amount of people who would buy DLC. Obviously, the less people who buy the game used or not, the less people who buy DLC for that game.

That's just my take on it, I wish I could stay up longer to debate my point but I have to get up for work soon lol. I'll respond to you again when I'm awake.

Edit: Sorry about the wall, it didnt look like that before I clicked submit. Meh.

Hopefully they start charging to access online for everyone new or used, i mean what better way to accommodate server demand by knowing who actually wants to play online... plus it will save and make companies way more money.

I completely support them. They aren't evil. They aren't trying to cheat us out of our money. They just want to be compensated for their hard work and dedication.

Phoenix534

yes selling a game twice isn't good enough. let's milk the gamer even more who has nothing to do with what gamestop is doing. Are people like you even able to say these things with a straight face? Do you also support gamestop and the consumer for their hard work and dedication? As we all know EA is really living out of a cardboard box these days and don't make nearly enough money. M$ is also really slumming it charging for live and all as it is. I pay for the internet. I pay for live. I'm not paying $10 more to play a game i paid $60 that is advertised to work online. Sry. What these corporations are trying to do is put everyone else in the poorhouse except themselves. What needs to happen is EA needs to go and there needs to be more independant development and get rid of these ****

Anybody that thinks this is bad is looking at it the wrong way. What will happen is that used game stores like Gamestop will be forced to reduce their outrageous used game prices. I never understood why people would even bother saving $5 on a relatively new used game.

You can buy and resell everything in life as many times as you want. Why do videogames have to be different? I find this bogus. I don't buy a lot of used games, and I don't play a lot of multiplayer apart from a few games so it doesn't effect me too much but it is pretty ridiculous.white_sox

In order to see a new film release, you have to shell out around 10 bucks, give or take depending on where you live. In order to make back money, the various film companies have X amount of time of being exclusive to a first run theater. After that period, the films are shipped to second run theaters. It's almost the same thing. Would you rather have it this way: Say your friend buys Halo: Reach, where he has full access to all the games features. Then, you happen to find a used copy 3 days later because a sony fanboy didn't like it, but since you bought it used, you couldn't play online for 4 months.

all this does is make Gamestop change their policies(Gamestop sucks anyways)

and it encourages people to buy new, even more so then before

not a big deal people, move along

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="white_sox"]You can buy and resell everything in life as many times as you want. Why do videogames have to be different? I find this bogus. I don't buy a lot of used games, and I don't play a lot of multiplayer apart from a few games so it doesn't effect me too much but it is pretty ridiculous.white_sox

In order to see a new film release, you have to shell out around 10 bucks, give or take depending on where you live. In order to make back money, the various film companies have X amount of time of being exclusive to a first run theater. After that period, the films are shipped to second run theaters. It's almost the same thing. Would you rather have it this way: Say your friend buys Halo: Reach, where he has full access to all the games features. Then, you happen to find a used copy 3 days later because a sony fanboy didn't like it, but since you bought it used, you couldn't play online for 4 months.

I'm saying videogames are no different than other forms of entertainment. Games have become a huge business. The amount of money it costs to create a game and put it to the market is a lot more than it used to be. While corporations are pretty louzy for the most part, there is still a thing called workers rights. Would you rather the game developing grunts take a pay cut?

It is just the new age of fees for everything. I understand why they do it and in the end I support it.

I get new games cheap enough (Amazon) anyway so it doesn't really affect me. Doomtime

My problem with EA doing this is that they shut down servers for older games. So now if you buy the game used and then pay for the online it can and most certainly will be shut down in the future. Then again I just have a problem with them shutting down servers period.

Oh well, I am happy about this because I am sure used game prices will go down. Plus in EA's case (until they start doing this with all games) I never play sports games online so I still would never buy new.

Console prices are a monopoly already, $65 per new game (1/3 the price of the console itself mind you) is ridiculous and many people will not spend that kind of money so they have to buy used but will not even do that if the extra charge is outrageous. I accept something like $5 price to activate it for online play but anymore is just greedy. If the used game is selling for very cheap then adding an extra activation fee should not be an issued if your already getting the game for next to nothing.

Anybody that thinks this is bad is looking at it the wrong way. What will happen is that used game stores like Gamestop will be forced to reduce their outrageous used game prices. I never understood why people would even bother saving $5 on a relatively new used game.

Heirren

Well wouldnt the cost of online since its used offset any price drop GS would set.

Hmmm... let's see. So, I have to buy the game ($45-$55 for a used recent game @ Gamestop), pay for XBox Live ($50 per year), pay for online access for the game ($5-$10), and then pay for things that should have been in the original game otherwise known as DLC ($10 or more, sometimes multiple times depending on how much DLC content is released). Yes, it sure does seem that the corporations just want their fair share. *sarcasm*

I don't even buy used games ever (unless it's for a previous gen and I can't find a new copy), but I still don't like where this is all going.

A little diagram explaining how revenue is lost from the parent companies. The red box symbolises who is actually taking part in the transaction and the flow of funds

Seriously this just seems so stupid too me since were already paying for xbox live to play online I don't see why we have to pay an extra $10 to have to play a used game online. Does anybody else feel like me?

We've already had a thread about this for EA charging, so why bring it up again when the exact same things are going be argued over again?

Oh and I still strongly disagree with your opinion and think you need to do some research.

We've already had a thread about this for EA charging, so why bring it up again when the exact same things are going be argued over again?

Oh and I still strongly disagree with your opinion and think you need to do some research.

callsignneptune

research relating to what?

and this is an expanded thread now that other companies have caught on...

I'm highly surprised the companies haven't been locking games to specific Live/PSN accounts. If the game is detected on another system by an online Live/PSN server, it must have the game's owners account on that system in order to be played. A system that is offline won't have this issue, but if it's offline, it of course won't have the benefit of any online play.

Supposedly Sony developed a form of disc DRM a while back that makes a disc completely unplayable on any other machine once activated and tied to the first machine. I would assume the disc is given some form of physical change IE the disc is put into the machine, a long inner bar code is read off the very center of the disc, and registered with the system to know the disc is activated with that system. The disc drive with a built in laser burner then physically burns off the barcode and uses the same activation code stored somewhere on the disc (perhaps an outer bar code) as a verfication that the disc indeed belongs to a particular system. Basically the system would function as such when a disc is inserted:

I. Looks for inner bar code
a. If it is intact, it is read and secondary outer bar code is verified as the same code. When verified, the system interprets the game "Unactivated"andproceeds to register the game + unique code to the system. When complete, laser burner burns off the inner barcode to physically mark the disc as activated and registered.
b. If inner bar code is burned off, system checks outer bar code as to belonging to the system
1. If registered with system, disc is loaded and played
2. If not registered with system, disc is not loaded, seen as activated on another system


Code DRM + Physical DRM would be the only way to make such a thing work. Even still it could be hacked but it would be very difficult, especially if the firmware for reading and activating the bar code is directly built into the disc player/reader. Codes would be stored first in the disc drives own flash memory bank, then to the main storage system and lastly with Sony's own network.

Wow I feel evil just conjuring up this whole scheme :twisted: While I do support the ability to resale items, at least physically recorded and accessible data like books, software isn't physically accessible. It also cost's high amounts of money to develop of course, unlike most books which are a bit expensive to produce, but royalties only to go the author(s) and the publisher. The risks involved with not making a profit are not as bad as with software.

*Note: Something is up with the HTML, so I have to post this in a two part response*

Part 1

Alright, I definitely see where you're coming from. I think people should get paid for their hard work, yes. I think online service charges aren't too bad, seeing as how I pay to play Live anyways. However, you have a few flaws in your argument. You say:

Since you were buying used you already haven't been giving these companies your money for ages. They haven't missed you in the past and they're not going to start now. By someone saying "I'm not going to buy their games anymore" it means nothing since they don't see your money anyway.

Jasonguy

but then you argue that people should have to pay for online services when they buy used games. Okay, well, if they "haven't missed you in the past and they're not going to start now," why would they all of the sudden need to start charging used buyers for online services? If they haven't "seen [their] money anyways," why do they all of the sudden need to start seeing it now? The video game industry makes over 20 billion a year overall, so I think everyone is more than compensated for their work.

Part 2

Also, you say:

Also yes, SOMEONE ELSE buys that game new then they sell it to a used shop which sells it to you. That means now two customers have had a copy but the company that made the game was only paid for one. Don't you see that?

Jasonguy

Well, okay, fair enough. They don't see any money from having their game sold used, but a whole lot of other industries don't either. In fact, several other industries are hurt far worse than the video games industry by this. For instance, take the music industry: one person buys an album and within days potentially thousands of people have it for free. This isn't so easy with video games (for the time being, although it does happen with PC quite often), so, in reality, "used games" really don't hurt that much, if at all (seeing as how they don't see this "money anyways," nor have they ever).

Speaking as someone who plays video games and would like to potentially work as a designer for a game company, I can also say I know how expensive games can get. Luckily, I've had a lot of bad run-ins with used software, so I don't buy it. That, however, does not change the fact that games are still incredibly expensive. I've sought out a lot of other solutions, the best one being to buy games from Amazon, which several people have already mentioned. The video game industry makes a TON of money from each game, even if it isn't popular. If used games are really such an issue, I guarantee you they'll say something about used games in particular. The music industry took a stand against Napster when it was first out and I'm sure the video game industry will fight a potential problem as well. Also, as a pre-emptive strike against something you may raise, these "online service fees" are not a response to some sort of "used video game issue." Really all they're trying to do is what everyone else is trying to do and that's to make more money. The hot topic within the past few months is downloadable content already being on the disk, yet still having to pay for it (Bioshock 2 multiplayer characters for instance). Its all just another way to make money. I personally don't support used games, but I don't think someone who is already on a budget crunch and has to resort to used games should have to dish out more cash just to play their game in full.

This severely hurts the consumer and I don't see how anyone could defend it. The game companies do not have any right to control their product after they sell it. Once ownership of the game is transfered to me, I own it. If I want to sell it I may, and if someone wants to buy it used they may. Every product has a secondhand market - games should be no different. Why these companies are so arrogant is beyond me. I am glad to see that some people feel this way.

Killing the used game market will hurt gaming. No need to explain this one.

The game industry needs to take a page out of the movie industry's book: In the late 90's the DVD format was chosen as the successor to VHS because they could be competitively priced to compete with the used movie market. Game prices NEED to drop; the vast majority of games out there are not worth $60.

You can buy and resell everything in life as many times as you want. Why do videogames have to be different? I find this bogus. I don't buy a lot of used games, and I don't play a lot of multiplayer apart from a few games so it doesn't effect me too much but it is pretty ridiculous.white_sox

This severely hurts the consumer and I don't see how anyone could defend it. The game companies do not have any right to control their product after they sell it. Once ownership of the game is transfered to me, I own it. If I want to sell it I may, and if someone wants to buy it used they may. Every product has a secondhand market - games should be no different. Why these companies are so arrogant is beyond me. I am glad to see that some people feel this way.

Killing the used game market will hurt gaming. No need to explain this one.

The game industry needs to take a page out of the movie industry's book: In the late 90's the DVD format was chosen as the successor to VHS because they could be competitively priced to compete with the used movie market. Game prices NEED to drop; the vast majority of games out there are not worth $60.

limpbizkit818

I completely support them. They aren't evil. They aren't trying to cheat us out of our money. They just want to be compensated for their hard work and dedication.

Phoenix534

I predict lesser people to find online in multiplayer, because a large portion of people who remain online/in multiplayer tend to be the ones that buy used or rent their games. Maybe you guys like empty lobby's?

[QUOTE="callsignneptune"]

We've already had a thread about this for EA charging, so why bring it up again when the exact same things are going be argued over again?

Oh and I still strongly disagree with your opinion and think you need to do some research.

chaoscougar1

research relating to what?

and this is an expanded thread now that other companies have caught on...

This entire arguement is old now. Okay, other companies are following suit. All the people with any common sense said this would happen in the very first thread. I said this would happen 2 years ago. The lines are drawn and people are going to stand on one side or the other. Nothing said here is going to sway any opinions. As for me, I will buy every game new that I had previously intended to buy. Which is between 3-6 a year. I buy many used games, and that will slow down because I won't support these companies in any form from now on if they aren't going to let me use their services.

All that it comes down to for me is that someone has already paid for the said game, therefore, THE COMPANY HAS ALREADY PROIFITED OFF OF THE GAME. They do not deserve to profit 2 or more times off of any one game. That is not the way economics is meant to work, and in the end this WILL fail. People like me will stop playing used games like Mass Effect 1, and therefore not purchase Mass Effect 2. I will stop buying games like Borderlands used, and therefore the company will make $0 off of DLC and expansions.

If I buy a 2 month old television off of my neigbor and he gives me the sales reciept and warranty info then I own the warranty to that television. The company will support the television because I can then prove that this television was paid for. That is all that matters. Every gun I own except one has been used. The companies support life-time warranties on almost every gun I own, used or not, receipt or not. I have sent guns to be repaired back to the factory when I was probably the 4th or 5th owner, and there is never a question asked. The only reason the rules are changed for video games is because A. Microsot and Sony are going to let them get away with it. And B. Because your Xbox and Playstation are connected to the internet and they have an unfortunate means to pull something like this off.

I'm only stating the facts, and if you have a differing opinion that's fine with me, I really don't care. But I'll be there to say I told you so when they drop this policy very soon, or don't blame me when we get the 2nd video game crash. You can only disrespect people for so long before they lose interest completely.

Soon every single company will be charging people who buy used to play online and I welcome it with open arms

This is bad since I mostly buy used games(And I only buynew when its a game that i absolutely want)

looks like GameFly people are f'd.

Why do so many people have a problem with game developers and publishers protecting their own investments??

I totally understand why the companies already named are trying to get something back for their products from the Pre-Owned market, as it stand they currently make almost zero from the pre-owned side of the gaming market, only DLC content purchased will give them anything, so why not ensure you get the rightful money from a sale of their game

I get that some gamers cant afford to buy new, with trade ins the price can come down, but if you want to play certain games then sometimes you do have to pay for it, or accept that you wont have the full content of it, like others who paid the full price get accesss to

Why should I pay for a game for its features, then have someone else pay half of what i did some weeks later for the same content.....balance is everything, I for one have problem with companies protecting their investment