It was recently rumoured that Microsoft's next Xbox console would feature some kind of anti-used-games system, possibly involving online registration. Cue internet-wide outcry and some mixed responses from developers.
One of Volition's staffers has welcomed the idea, arguing that companies lose revenue to pre-owned sales, but Saber Interactive CEO Matthew Karch isn't convinced.
"I don't think we should prevent people from playing used games," Karch told CVG today. "I understand why they would want to do it, but I think the approach should be different.
Countering annoyingly persistent claims that every pre-owned game traded counts as a lost sale, Karch pointed out that new game purchases might actually suffer if players are denied the opportunity to recoup their investments.
"$60 is a lot to pay for a game and if a player buys a dud and is stuck with it, then that's just not fair to force him to keep it. If people buy Inversion and it's not for them, then why should they be forced to turn it into a drink coaster?"
He argued for lowering game prices instead to disincentivise trade-ins. This could be achieved by focusing on digital titles, which lack the distribution costs of physical products. "I really believe that with digital distribution you can get that same full-length experience for $30."
Publishers could release single and multiplayer modes as separate products, Karch suggested, to give users more purchasing options. For more, check out the CVG piece in full.
11 comments so far...
Bezza89 on 8 Feb '12 said:
I agree and disagree. I wont pay out full price for random, or B class games, but Bioware, R*, Bethesda, Gears and all the top class titles that do well anyway deserve my money. It would be better to have price brackets for games, Arcade - 1200 or less, B titles - £20-£30, AAA games - £40. It would be subjective and ultimately fail to be honest.
I'm with Cliff Blezinski, keep people glued to your game with extra content, but I would work DLC prices/passes in with the retail product, it's no fun spending £40 on gears then £20 on a pass or on subsequent content. Sell it for £50 with a pass, or first two dlcs free. That would probably also fail.
hujiki on 8 Feb '12 said:
I would never buy the console if this was to exist, like seriously developers make shit loads of money.
Ok they say they loose money on preowned games, make a sea with retailers, I'm sure i read a few weeks back retailers are saying dump the online pass and we will share revenue; their you go... PROBLEM SOLVED... but now you guys are being greedy.. Make Class A++ games and they will sell, look at GOW3, MW3, BF3, Skyrim etc.. they were good, they sold... Happy Developers and happy customers...
Seriously you guys are starting to care less about what customers want and are just cashing in, i know its business but seriously look after your customers..
Clanger67 on 8 Feb '12 said:
I will happily pay top money for a release i have been looking forward to.But then like this year in the next few months nobody can afford to get every single game that is released when it is released.Factor this in over a length of time and your only option sometimes is to buy pre owned because it is impossible to find brand new.
Bezza89 on 8 Feb '12 said:
Those devs aren't complaining about lost sales it's the smaller ones, who can't afford to make the graphics as stellar and lose sales as a result of it not looking pretty enough as well.
Clanger67 on 8 Feb '12 said:
Trouble is as well smaller devs aren't let off the hook the same as a bigger developer.Skyrim for example because i am playing it the update still isn't out but i love the game and and bought the day it was released because you know it's gonna get fixed.
STE MO on 8 Feb '12 said:
Maybe this lock to console won't work over here, you know what the Europeans are like!
AllusiveTurtle on 8 Feb '12 said:
Personally I have never bought a second hand game and very much doubt that I ever will. I buy a huge amount of games, most of them on release and have a collection approaching 300 games. However, my thinking when I buy a game is that if I do not like it, I can always sell it after having given it a spin (though I have to say that I have never traded in a game). I have always believed that if a product of any description was sold more cheaply, that more of that product would be sold in the first place, as more people could afford it. It makes sense that if a person is prepared to part with £20 for a second hand game and then a further £10 for a Season Pass to replace the one that was use when the game was initially purchased, that they are will be willing to part with £30 to buy the game new thus enabling all the money to go to the developer. Ultimately I believe that if developers sell the games more cheaply, they will sell more and quite possibly make still more money once all sales have been made than they would if they stick to the higher price.
It is quite wrong to prevent people from selling a purchased item once they have finished with it, and I can think of no other product that does it; once you buy the product, it becomes your to do with as you please. From cars to CDs, DVDs to toys, all can be bought second hand, no other product seems so fixated with the second hand market as games developers. I strongly believe that developers will suffer a significant drop in sales of new games if purchasers of new games cannot rely on being able to sell them on; this could be the kiss-of-death for game developers, as the majority of people that trade in games, do so to buy a new game. Kill the second-hand market and you will put less money into the pockets of the very people who keep the games industry afloat.
CunningSmile on 8 Feb '12 said:
Problem with that is that if it's anything like books and DVDs the B titles are being over charged to subsidise the AAA titles and keep the cost of those down. By introducing price brackets we could end up paying £20-30 for the second tier titles but Skyrim or Mass Effect would set us back £60+
Bezza89 on 8 Feb '12 said:
Like I said, it would fail. It's what I do anyway, pay around £20 new for new IPs where I'm making a risk or sequels to games I know are average.
coldshank on 10 Feb '12 said:
blocking used games is criminal, plain and simple. If the downloadable games on xbl were reasonably priced I'm sure more people would buy them which would solve half the problem. I won't support a console that doesn't allow used games not that I buy a lot of them as I tend to know which games I want and buy them at release but there has been many a game I simply would not have been able to play if I hadn't tracked down a used copy somewhere. Simply check the game website at how many older games they still have in stock and you'd see we'd be screwed without used games.
CunningSmile on 10 Feb '12 said:
Game don't stock older games because they would rather gouge us on the used titles. If they didn't have that option they would stock the older ones.