Ban second hand games! says Crytek (kind of)

MOH

"The introduction of an anti-used game measure for next-gen consoles would be "absolutely awesome," says Crysis dev Crytek."

From a PC gaming point of view, this is one of the things that's bugged me for ages about DRM - it kills the second hand market.

I'm not sure I buy the whole loss of sales argument.

A gamer can only afford to spend €x on games. Back when I bought games regularly, I'd only very occasionally pay full price from a AAA title, simply because I couldn't afford it. I'd either wait a while until the price came down to something more affordable, or I'd pick up a second hand copy on ebay a few weeks after release.

Where I did pay full price up front, I'd often sell it on after playing, with the resulting money going to fund new purchases.

A lot of the games I did pay full price for were either sequels or new release from the same developers of games I'd originally picked up cheap second hand or on sale - in particular, I remember an impulse buy of a well old version of Championship Manager, which led to me pre-ordering later incarnations of CM/FM for about 4 years.

Take second hand sales out of the equation, and you're going to have less people playing your game. The people who already buy your game at full price are going to have less cash available to buy other games. A lot of people who might have bought your game second hand, and can't or won't pay full price for it, may pirate it. And are probably then less likely to pay for future releases. And those who don't end up playing it all are less likely to become future customers.

There's only a finite amount of cash to pay for games. Cutting off cheaper options for people to buy games isn't going to magically make more people pay full price for them. Anyway, that's my rant!

ShadowHearth

as a pc gamer i got used to not being able to trade in. i got all consoles, but even then i dont trade in.

if i cant afford, i just dont buy it and wait for sales. thats why i still had money after 2011 xmas season!

though i agree, developers see only one side of the coin, when it comes to trade ins. so if crytek really wants second hand market to die, then they better make sure they make perfect game this time, becouse when people get even more limited money they will have to do compromises and choose only 1 product, which will give the best bang for the money.

super_furry

I can understand their thinking but as a consumer, if you take away my ability to trade in games, I'm going to be buying less games. I'll also be less willing to take a risk on an unknown property or less than stelar reviewed game, knowing that I'm stuck with it.

At the moment if a new release comes out that hasn't enjoyed the best reviews, I can still take a gamble on it and if I don't like, trade it back in the next week and at least get half my outlay back. If I can't do that anymore I'll be more inclined to just buy games I know are good.

VinLieger

ShadowHearth wrote: »

as a pc gamer i got used to not being able to trade in. i got all consoles, but even then i dont trade in.

if i cant afford, i just dont buy it and wait for sales. thats why i still had money after 2011 xmas season!

This, i have no problem with killing second hand games as i dont buy them and if i cant afford a game on release i wait till i can afford it.
I just dont get those people who have to have every game that comes out on day one, make a decision and if you cant afford it on day one just buy it a few months down line when you can afford it or prices drop.
Killing second hand games sales will not affect me in the least.

PerrinV2

I bought crysis 2 the other day 2nd for 15 euro....its ok.

Twilightning

I prefer to buy games on Steam and when I did game primarily on a console a large amount of my library consisted of 2nd hand games. That being said, you seem to get a fair amount of flak around here for merely suggesting you pirate games sometimes when buying them second hand and giving zero money to the developers isn't any different. Why do you think this 'online pass' phenomenon came about?

johnny_ultimate

OP posts article concerning a developer's views on used game sales.

Poster A pro-used game sales.

Poster B anti-used game sales.

Poster A argues that a used game sale is not a lost sale, and that developers should make better games to warrant first day prices (which are ridiculously high anyway). Used game sales keep retail stores alive.

Poster B argues that developer > retailer. PC gaming cited as good example of format where used game sales are non-existent. Proposes that new games aren't all that expensive anyway, and you can probably just wait a few weeks for the price to drop if you so wish.

Poster A says something about digital downloads.

Poster B says something about digital downloads.

Poster C, regular of arcade & retro forum, bemoans the death of physical formats.

Poster A proposes that online passes are the devil, and uses the 'used car' analogy.

Poster B equates used sales to piracy.

Meme pictures and thinly veiled insults as the circular argument continues for several pages.

The cycle begins afresh.

MOH

Twilightning wrote: »

That being said, you seem to get a fair amount of flak around here for merely suggesting you pirate games sometimes when buying them second hand and giving zero money to the developers isn't any different.

There can be a difference though.
Many people do factor in the second hand resale value of the game when buying it at full price. So by buying it second hand you're contributing towards a full price sale (or your money may go towards a future purchase, whichever way round you want to look at it).

Or maybe they'll just spend the money on beer, but there's a chance it'll end up going back into the gaming industry, while with piracy there's none.

Banjo

There's a market for 2nd hand games. Fighting it costs time, money and customer goodwill. Why not embrace it and create a system for the resale and transfer of licenses that cuts them in on the deal?

gizmo

Banjo wrote: »

There's a market for 2nd hand games. Fighting it costs time, money and customer goodwill. Why not embrace it and create a system for the resale and transfer of licenses that cuts them in on the deal?

The only cost effective way to do that would be on a platform level which is what I'd say most publishers and developers would prefer to see.

I've made my opinions on the whole used games thing clear before so I won't go back there but one thing always amuses me in this debate. One rather significant demographic is always left out, the one which never buys any new games at all. People often point out, possibly quite rightly, that if they lose the ability to trade in their games or pick up iffy titles second hand then they will be less likely to buy (as many) new titles in the future. But what about the gamer that doesn't buy any in the first place? Would they simply stop gaming? Or would they begin to buy new games, albeit in a smaller amount?

hooradiation

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

OP posts article concerning a developer's views on used game sales.

Poster A pro-used game sales.

Poster B anti-used game sales.

Poster A argues that a used game sale is not a lost sale, and that developers should make better games to warrant first day prices (which are ridiculously high anyway). Used game sales keep retail stores alive.

Poster B argues that developer > retailer. PC gaming cited as good example of format where used game sales are non-existent. Proposes that new games aren't all that expensive anyway, and you can probably just wait a few weeks for the price to drop if you so wish.

Poster A says something about digital downloads.

Poster B says something about digital downloads.

Poster C, regular of arcade & retro forum, bemoans the death of physical formats.

Poster A proposes that online passes are the devil, and uses the 'used car' analogy.

Poster B equates used sales to piracy.

Meme pictures and thinly veiled insults as the circular argument continues for several pages.

The cycle begins afresh.

SeantheMan

hooradiation wrote: »

Lolololol

Agreed ,
I've never had a 2nd hand PC game, all mine are up in the "Cloud" permanently linked to my account

For console, I never traded in games either, I'd rather they sit on my shelf than get 4euro for them.

I have no "need" for Release-day purchases, buy 1, finish 1 , buy another.

Why people buy Skyrim, COD, BF3, Fallout and 5 other AAA titles in the same month, and then complain they've no money is beyond me.
By the time you'd finish 2, the others would have come down in price.

cloud493

I think part of the complaint is that AAA games are too high in price. But thats another argument

Myrddin

They'll kill second hand games.
Some will moan, citing it as only a money maker.
Some will feel it's the right decision.
We will all still buy games.

JohnMarston

EnterNow wrote: »

They'll kill second hand games.
Some will moan, citing it as only a money maker.
Some will feel it's the right decision.
We will all still buy games.

People will privately trade games from friends second hand following the ban in game shops. Profits will drop significantly in said shops from the ban, forcing them to either close or drop their prices on new games.

Myrddin

JohnMarston wrote: »

People will privately trade games from friends second hand following the ban in game shops. Profits will drop significantly in said shops from the ban, forcing them to either close or drop their prices on new games.

But each game will be tied to one account [in theory], trading isn't possible. Hence the uproar.

JohnMarston

EnterNow wrote: »

But each game will be tied to one account [in theory], trading isn't possible. Hence the uproar.

Ah i see. Yes uproar, absolutely. I'd like to see how well that affects Cryteks reputation if something like that did get enforced.
You'll walk into your local game shop thinking you'll be stuck with whatever game you buy.

Wait, what about game rentals? I assume they would gone too

Otacon

JohnMarston wrote: »

Wait, what about game rentals? I assume they would gone too

I could see a system where you could rent a game via the PSN or XBox Live, similar to how PS+ offers full game trials.

Myrddin

Otacon wrote: »

I could see a system where you could rent a game via the PSN or XBox Live, similar to how PS+ offers full game trials.

Yeah agreed, also something like Onlive where you can download a demo/rent/buy.

I think it's probably a logical thing to do, maximizing profits etc. But as a mostly retro gamer, my biggest concern is when these new consoles are eventually killed off & left in the dust. How does one collect for it retroactively if games are out of print/no longer available online? The only hope is that when the system is eventually discontinued, they release a final update which removes any game lockouts.

I doubt it, but I can hope.

hightower1

As far as I see it every dev would love to destroy used games market. They must all think they make the worlds greatest games and that if the second hand market was gone everyne would still buy their games?

In reality what would happen is bigger games would sell awy uneffected, theymay even see a rise in purchases. Mediocer games such as prototype as example would see a sharp decline. People buy these games new now as the know their shelf life and expect to recoup costs on a trade in a few weeks later. Take that ability away and people will be far less likely splash out full price with no recoup later on.

The knock on effect would be less people less likel to try games they may never have played before and as a result if that game gets a sequel the franchise as a whole gets effected. If a new game comes out now and pepole take a chance knowing they can always trade in later on they may find they like the game and then buy new for the sequel. Sniper ghost warrior is a prime example of this. A lot of folks tried this second hand (more than expected also on new) but so much so that it green lit a sequel that so far looks notibly better the the original. Without the second hand market leting people wet their beaks / take a chance and without the second hand market letting people take the chance at a new IP by giving recoup comfort if its terrible they simply wouldnt have had the backing to get a sequel. I bought it new simply cause I liked the idea and knew I could trade in if it was ****e. If I couldnt trade in I wouldnt have taken the chance. In this case I swa potential and will be the sequel new.


Seems like devs are up their own hole and think that they hold all the cards by putting out top class games every time.... thats deluded, they need to come back to reality and face up to facts. Second hand market encourages people to try mediocer games and thus gives hem the chance to improve their dev skills and entice pepole to buy new fom them in the future.


At this stage Id almost like to let them at it and destroy the used game market followed by the avalanche of excues when many devs close in the 24 months there after - they'd tout lines like "global recession effectsgaming market" or capcoms response to poor sales to their poor game (operation racoon city) "the survival horror market isnt there anymore".... yeah thats it devs, blame everyone and everything except yourselves. :rolleyes:

Retr0gamer

Dear game developers. You are not entitled to money from second hand game sales. Deal with it.

richymcdermott

Maybe if devlopers stopped putting so much money into graphics they wouldnt be taken such a hit
Also if games go digital on consoles then publishers can bump up their prices to 70-80 quid and people cant do **** about it and you know some fool would have no problem pay more for a game.

Otacon

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Dear game developers. You are not entitled to money from second hand game sales. Deal with it.

There are though.

Creating patches for games requires money. So does keeping servers online and support open.

JohnMarston

richymcdermott wrote: »

Also if games go digital on consoles then publishers can bump up their prices to 70-80 quid and people cant do **** about it and you know some fool would have no problem pay more for a game.

If they release free demos online for their games, and if it is that good, i will pay retail price on release day. The cost of publishing will come way down when you eliminate physical discs, something i am against because i like a physical copy in my hand.

Myrddin

Otacon wrote: »

There are though.

Creating patches for games requires money. So does keeping servers online and support open.

Patches fix issues that were there to begin with for the most part, only offering devs a chance to rush games out & fix them later.

Keeping servers online? Well, in business there are always costs. There has to be some selling points/incentive for customers to play games. Why should I pay extra for a game if I'm an offline gamer, purely to facilitate MP users? No, thats what subscriptions are for. The price of a game should include just that, the game.

JohnMarston

Otacon wrote: »

There are though.

Creating patches for games requires money. So does keeping servers online and support open.

There is free online gaming on psn, but an increasing number of games have a code in the box in order to access online play. Therefore you cannot burden servers if you buy a second hand game. Not saying that applies to all games of course.

As for patches, well the developers only have themselves to blame for that. Create a more bug-free game and they save money. They shouldn't expect the consumer to pay for their mistakes

Retr0gamer

Otacon wrote: »

There are though.

Creating patches for games requires money. So does keeping servers online and support open.

By law they aren't. Creating patches for games is just providing support for their game. They don't have to do it and can if they want to charge money for it but I don't see anyone doing that.

As for keeping servers online, they're providing a service there and can charge for it if they like. That's completely seperate from the physical copy you bought.

By law game developers can't stop you selling a game you bought. Even online authentification could be argued to be against the law but so far there have been no class suit action brought up about this. Publishers are twisting software copyright law to suit themselves. With any copyrighted work you are free to sell the copy you purchased on but are not allowed to make copies of it. With software since the software has to be copied to RAM to run there was extra legislation added to cover this. It's really badly worded and archaic and in bad need of being updated. Publishers are using this to their advantage at the moment. Some of the research into this area even suggests that if it were argued in court then the sale of digital only software second hand would be permitted.

I really don't see a console that blocks second hand games in the future. Publishers and platform holders like the way the law is and something like that could threaten a law suit action and rewrite of the law. Think they would rather ride it out until it goes completely digital where the law heavily favours the publisher.

johnny_ultimate

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Dear game developers. You are not entitled to money from second hand game sales. Deal with it.

Much like developers / publishers / format owners are entirely entitled to protect their intellectual property and profit margins however they see fit.

Again, it's an argument with two sides, and it's really not as easy as a simple good/bad divide. That's why I find as an argument, it's one that is destined to cycle endlessly.

[inevitablestrawmanargument] You don't expect to buy a used car and get the petrol free, though, do you? [/inevitablestrawmanargument]

Myrddin

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Much like developers / publishers / format owners are entirely entitled to protect their intellectual property and profit margins however they see fit.

Again, it's an argument with two sides, and it's really not as easy as a simple good/bad divide. That's why I find as an argument, it's one that is destined to cycle endlessly.

But there's a difference between protection, & monopolization surely?

johnny_ultimate

As in a monopoly where it's only possible to buy games from a single source? A potentially troublesome situation, but one that I forsee being a bit away yet. I don't necessarily consider it a traditional monopoly though, as you're still wholly entitled to pick and choose the games / format you want. The market will ultimately dictate prices and what will succeed, as it always does.

Not that it isn't without successful precedents either. You could contrast it with something like HBO in the States: the only legal way to watch Game of Thrones or whatever, and you have to go through a sole provider. And they're pretty damn successful in that regard.

Myrddin

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

As in a monopoly where it's only possible to buy games from a single source?

Not so much a single source, but the dev company/house having it so that you have to buy the game new, from them in a sense. Be it a physical copy or a download, you have no option to buy used.

It's still yet to be proved a used sale is a lost new sale. I got Wolfenstein 360 there a while ago for €5 or something. I would in no way have paid a retail price for the game. I bought the game because the price appealed to me, whereas otherwise I'd have strolled on past it. That's why I see eliminating used game sales is unfair.

The type of used games that are €5 below rrp, well thats a different matter. Thats' just ridiculous & greedy on the part of the retailers. It's just a pity there's no nice balance in between.

I still ask though, how are you meant to buy games for such a system after it's been discontinued?