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

Admittedly, I haven't read the whole thread, so someone may have made this point already, but look at this: the publisher prints a game disc. They sell this disc, and user #1has paid for it. At this point, user #1 OWNS the disc to do as he pleases with it; play it, put drinks on top of it to prevent an unsightly watermark on his coffee table, throw it in the dishwasher, or sell it. The game no longer belongs to the publisher. They made their money on that disc. They are essentially trying to make money on a product that they NO LONGER OWN.El_Zo1212o

Know what they don't own?

The online service

No one is saying someone can't sell what they own, no one but the publishers own the online services

So if someone wants to buy used pony up 10 bucks so you can use someone else's online services

I buy my games new anyway, unless its some game that I over looked and Im pickin it up yrs later at a very low price, if so Im sure the online is dead anyway.

I can see why they are doing this, theysee the money being made by places like Gamestop and they want in.They got paid already, somebody had to buy it new for it to be used.

I buy Madden new and become a gamer on their server, they get paid. Now I turn around and sell the game to my friend and he takes my place on the online server. they have already been paid and there is still one person for that copy of Madden using online server. How does that hurt them? It doesnt they just want some of that money.

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]Admittedly, I haven't read the whole thread, so someone may have made this point already, but look at this: the publisher prints a game disc. They sell this disc, and user #1has paid for it. At this point, user #1 OWNS the disc to do as he pleases with it; play it, put drinks on top of it to prevent an unsightly watermark on his coffee table, throw it in the dishwasher, or sell it. The game no longer belongs to the publisher. They made their money on that disc. They are essentially trying to make money on a product that they NO LONGER OWN.Jaysonguy

Know what they don't own?

The online service

No one is saying someone can't sell what they own, no one but the publishers own the online services

So if someone wants to buy used pony up 10 bucks so you can use someone else's online services

I really hope you don't end up making business decisions for publishers. I have the sneaking suspicion you'd have gamers paying through the nose to play games. Lets not charge the gamer for everything.

What next: charge for a code to activate the game? Charge to unlock the last few levels?

I buy my games new (unless it's an old game) and I have little problem paying for DLC, Xbox live, themes etc etc - but please, they're trying to get every last penny out of us. Yet they make a decent profit when they make a marketable game (refer to MW2), and from other deals and advertising they make plenty before they even sell a single copy of said game. They make money on the initial purchase. Lets not pretend the preowned market is leaving them in the gutter. After all, we have just seen a billion-dollar game...

I buy my games new anyway, unless its some game that I over looked and Im pickin it up yrs later at a very low price, if so Im sure the online is dead anyway.

I can see why they are doing this, theysee the money being made by places like Gamestop and they want in.They got paid already, somebody had to buy it new for it to be used.

I buy Madden new and become a gamer on their server, they get paid. Now I turn around and sell the game to my friend and he takes my place on the online server. they have already been paid and there is still one person for that copy of Madden using online server. How does that hurt them? It doesnt they just want some of that money.

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]Admittedly, I haven't read the whole thread, so someone may have made this point already, but look at this: the publisher prints a game disc. They sell this disc, and user #1has paid for it. At this point, user #1 OWNS the disc to do as he pleases with it; play it, put drinks on top of it to prevent an unsightly watermark on his coffee table, throw it in the dishwasher, or sell it. The game no longer belongs to the publisher. They made their money on that disc. They are essentially trying to make money on a product that they NO LONGER OWN.Jaysonguy

Know what they don't own?

The online service

No one is saying someone can't sell what they own, no one but the publishers own the online services

So if someone wants to buy used pony up 10 bucks so you can use someone else's online services

one person is buying the game and only one person will be using the service.billyd5301

100% incorrect (I was going to say wrong but you are a Game Room fan too so I went easy lol)

When the first person buys a game new they get the pass for free so they go on and sign in and all that jazz for the game. They now have a username that's associated with the account and they have that tied in with all their DLC and records and stats and leagues everything these services offer.

Now they play their game and sell it to a store so the second person buys it used

Now we have the publisher keeping tracks of all the first person's information and then they're also asked to maintain someone else's account for free as well? And if that's sold and bought again now we have three.

For the sake of argument let's just say that all used games only switch hands once, that means that the publisher is using their online service keeping usernames/DLC/stats/records all on their servers for two people when only one person has given them money for the game.

So no, it's not just one person using the service at any time

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]Admittedly, I haven't read the whole thread, so someone may have made this point already, but look at this: the publisher prints a game disc. They sell this disc, and user #1has paid for it. At this point, user #1 OWNS the disc to do as he pleases with it; play it, put drinks on top of it to prevent an unsightly watermark on his coffee table, throw it in the dishwasher, or sell it. The game no longer belongs to the publisher. They made their money on that disc. They are essentially trying to make money on a product that they NO LONGER OWN.El_Zo1212o

Know what they don't own?

The online service

No one is saying someone can't sell what they own, no one but the publishers own the online services

So if someone wants to buy used pony up 10 bucks so you can use someone else's online services

Live has nothing to do with these games

Why do you think it does?

[QUOTE="white_sox"][QUOTE="Heirren"]

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.

Heirren

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?

Why do you assume that developers should make any money out of a used game sale - they shouldn't - just like with the used market for every other product.

I buy a used car, I don't pay the original manufacturer a fee or % cut - I pay the previous owner. In the case of games the previous owner is either a store or an individual through sites like ebay. Games developers aren't some special case that because they created something they should have perpetual rights over it every time a copy gets sold.

And to raise another point - as 360 gamers if we buy one of these products used, we end up paying double to play online as we have to pay for both Live and the Online Pass. If you only have Live but no Online Pass you can't play online. If you have an Online Pass but not Gold Live you can't play online.Why should we get charged twice for access to the same part of the game?

Atleast with MMOs on 360 that are subscription based the cost is entirely independent of the cost of Live - you pay the fee you get to play that game online regardless of your Live status. Should it not follow that by paying for an Online Pass you should be allowed to play that game online regardless of Gold/Silve Live?

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

Know what they don't own?

The online service

No one is saying someone can't sell what they own, no one but the publishers own the online services

So if someone wants to buy used pony up 10 bucks so you can use someone else's online services

Jaysonguy

Live has nothing to do with these games

Why do you think it does?

[QUOTE="billyd5301"]one person is buying the game and only one person will be using the service.Jaysonguy

100% incorrect (I was going to say wrong but you are a Game Room fan too so I went easy lol)

When the first person buys a game new they get the pass for free so they go on and sign in and all that jazz for the game. They now have a username that's associated with the account and they have that tied in with all their DLC and records and stats and leagues everything these services offer.

Now they play their game and sell it to a store so the second person buys it new

Now we have the publisher keeping tracks of all the first person's information and then they're also asked to maintain someone else's account for free as well? And if that's sold and bought again now we have three.

For the sake of argument let's just say that all used games only switch hands once, that means that the publisher is using their online service keeping usernames/DLC/stats/records all on their servers for two people when only one person has given them money for the game.

So no, it's not just one person using the service at any time

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

[QUOTE="billyd5301"]one person is buying the game and only one person will be using the service.billyd5301

100% incorrect (I was going to say wrong but you are a Game Room fan too so I went easy lol)

When the first person buys a game new they get the pass for free so they go on and sign in and all that jazz for the game. They now have a username that's associated with the account and they have that tied in with all their DLC and records and stats and leagues everything these services offer.

Now they play their game and sell it to a store so the second person buys it new

Now we have the publisher keeping tracks of all the first person's information and then they're also asked to maintain someone else's account for free as well? And if that's sold and bought again now we have three.

For the sake of argument let's just say that all used games only switch hands once, that means that the publisher is using their online service keeping usernames/DLC/stats/records all on their servers for two people when only one person has given them money for the game.

So no, it's not just one person using the service at any time

The argument about developers having to maintain servers, and those having costs is more an issue to do with how Live is setup than justifying this extra charge.

Microsoft chose to setup Live in such a way that instead of customers being charged by each publisher to use online in their games, MS chose to have a centralised charge for online - Gold Live subscription. MS host servers that companies can rent to have their games on. If they choose to setup their own servers, then so be it, but to do so they must think it is more cost effective than using the MS ones. It shouldn't grant them the right to charge more because of their decision.

If publishers are allowed to break away and start charging what they want for each game then it totally undermines the principle of paying for a Gold Live account.

If that's the case, why the hell do we pay for xbox live?El_Zo1212o

Live has nothing to do with these games

Why do you think it does?

[QUOTE="billyd5301"][QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

100% incorrect (I was going to say wrong but you are a Game Room fan too so I went easy lol)

When the first person buys a game new they get the pass for free so they go on and sign in and all that jazz for the game. They now have a username that's associated with the account and they have that tied in with all their DLC and records and stats and leagues everything these services offer.

Now they play their game and sell it to a store so the second person buys it new

Now we have the publisher keeping tracks of all the first person's information and then they're also asked to maintain someone else's account for free as well? And if that's sold and bought again now we have three.

For the sake of argument let's just say that all used games only switch hands once, that means that the publisher is using their online service keeping usernames/DLC/stats/records all on their servers for two people when only one person has given them money for the game.

So no, it's not just one person using the service at any time

The argument about developers having to maintain servers, and those having costs is more an issue to do with how Live is setup than justifying this extra charge.

Microsoft chose to setup Live in such a way that instead of customers being charged by each publisher to use online in their games, MS chose to have a centralised charge for online - Gold Live subscription. MS host servers that companies can rent to have their games on. If they choose to setup their own servers, then so be it, but to do so they must think it is more cost effective than using the MS ones. It shouldn't grant them the right to charge more because of their decision.

If publishers are allowed to break away and start charging what they want for each game then it totally undermines the principle of paying for a Gold Live account.

[QUOTE=Avenger1324] What are you going on about? I consider my reading comprehension to be at least average and I have no clue what you are talking about.

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?

Why do you assume that developers should make any money out of a used game sale - they shouldn't - just like with the used market for every other product.

I buy a used car, I don't pay the original manufacturer a fee or % cut - I pay the previous owner. In the case of games the previous owner is either a store or an individual through sites like ebay. Games developers aren't some special case that because they created something they should have perpetual rights over it every time a copy gets sold.

And to raise another point - as 360 gamers if we buy one of these products used, we end up paying double to play online as we have to pay for both Live and the Online Pass. If you only have Live but no Online Pass you can't play online. If you have an Online Pass but not Gold Live you can't play online.Why should we get charged twice for access to the same part of the game?

Atleast with MMOs on 360 that are subscription based the cost is entirely independent of the cost of Live - you pay the fee you get to play that game online regardless of your Live status. Should it not follow that by paying for an Online Pass you should be allowed to play that game online regardless of Gold/Silver Live?

I buy my games new anyway, unless its some game that I over looked and Im pickin it up yrs later at a very low price, if so Im sure the online is dead anyway.

I can see why they are doing this, theysee the money being made by places like Gamestop and they want in.They got paid already, somebody had to buy it new for it to be used.

I buy Madden new and become a gamer on their server, they get paid. Now I turn around and sell the game to my friend and he takes my place on the online server. they have already been paid and there is still one person for that copy of Madden using online server. How does that hurt them? It doesnt they just want some of that money.

It sucks for those used games that have a larger distance between new and used, but generally the gap is pretty small so I'd just buy new. I'v e been going to best buy anyways.

What about the people that buy it off of other people? I should have the right to sell my property to someone else if I so please. I can do it with everything else why should videogames be different.Innocentguy757

You guys have to remember that video game devs are losing alot of money to used game sales, If you guys love there games and want to see them continue to make them you can't be upset when they are trying to keep there loses to a minimum.SEANSEXYUNDIES

i don't support it at all, my brother n I share games on different consoles so one of us is going to have to pay $10 per title we both play on-line.

soon they r going to do this with cars to force you to buy a new one or pay a fee to use all the features in the car.

For example, if the new price of the car is $30,000, someone pays that much and then a year or two later they decide to get a different car and trade it in. Someone else comes by and buys it for $20,000, but in order for the stereo/navigation to work you have to pay another $5,000 for it, but you get a 7 day trial for it. Its the same thing that EA is doing just for video games instead of cars.

[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?

Maybe they should just lower development costs so the games are incredibly profitable? Theres no reason why they can't do that, infact they should want to cut spending, and what about single player games? If Mass Effect 3 has no MP, how is EA going to stop used sales there?

You guys have to remember that video game devs are losing alot of money to used game sales, If you guys love there games and want to see them continue to make them you can't be upset when they are trying to keep there loses to a minimum.SEANSEXYUNDIES

No electronic industry is immune to used sales and games aren't any different. or else the major phone carriers would hate Cricket Wireless.

This will not hurt used games sales at all.

If publishers really want us to buy new, sell games for less, cut development costs (no game should cost more than $10 million-$20 million) among other things

I'm sorry EA doesn't have the talented devs to make quality games like World of Goo, sold at a cheap price with a $12,000 budget, that profited 2D Boy lots of money and now there is many multiplatform versions in the works.

They can cut development costs down a lot, and charge less for new titles

I'd be willing to accept this Pass Online stuff if new games were $30-$40 new

It's called, THE FIGHT AGAINST PIRACY!

LegatoSkyheart