Ars Technica: Stopping the sale of used console games

[Bateluer]

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/...ox-could-stop-you-from-playing-used-games.ars

A recent Kotaku post cites "one reliable industry source" to suggest that the still-unannounced successor to Microsoft's Xbox 360 will somehow prevent used games from being played on the system. The idea remains an unconfirmed rumor, of course, but it's something that members of the game industry have floated repeatedly in the past. It's also a move that would likely find hefty support from publishers looking for a way to stop what they see as erosion of their profits thanks to used games (the reality is a bit more complicated than that, but we won't rehash that old argument here).

The renewed debate got us wondering, though: how might such a used-game prevention system actually work on a technical level?

Its an interesting read. Personally, I tend not to buy used games. But I'm primarily a PC gamer and rarely, if ever, play console games. But even on the PC, I either buy new or wait until the game is ultra cheap. Still, some of these tactics are unsettling.

 

[Stuxnet]

Imaging having to license our furniture and being forbidden from selling it or buying used.

It makes a little bit of sense when one purchase can be duplicated infinitely and then redistributed, but that's hardly the case with console games. Yeah, there are modded ones out there, but fixing that problem is the seller's problem, not the consumers'.

 

[alent1234]

microsoft would be morons to do this, it would be like giving the gaming market on a platter to apple

 

[Gillbot]

They are working on it with digital download games anyway. But yea, if this happens the console market will die (IMHO) unless they start getting aggressive with pricing on titles.

 

[Beev]

Digital Distribution will kill used gaming anyway. I look forward to it.

 

[Bateluer]

microsoft would be morons to do this, it would be like giving the gaming market on a platter to apple

Wat? Perhaps they'd cede it to Sony or Nintendo . . . you know, companies that make game consoles. Even if Sony/Nintendo took similar methods to stop used game sales, you're still going to buy two of the three consoles.

Apple has no traction in the console gaming market, and no plans to enter it.

 

[purbeast0]

maybe they are going the route of circuit city's Divx back in the day haha. maybe you have to install them and after you do the game self destructs.

i don't buy many used games in general since i typically know what games i want to purchase months before they are released, but this would be so fucking stupid to do this. i think it would hurt them much more than they think it will help them.

it could be as simple as each game comes with a activation # that you have to enter in order for the game to work, and that the activation numbers can't be used more than once. but then what happens to those who don't get online w/their 360?

 

[ImpulsE69]

These companies really DO want a war don't they. Good luck to them and their failing economy. Every step of the way they are digging themselves a deeper grave.

All of this is greed plain and simple. Capitalism at it's finest. I really loath our system sometimes.

 

[Rage187]

Games better drop to $29.99 and allow 6 installs or I am done with consoles. This is just going to drive people to pirate games.

 

[Gheris]

People talk of greed here but you have to look at it from every perspective. When you buy used games who gets the money? It's Gamestop, not the software companies who created the software. MS is doing this for the developers, and I gurantee you this will attract more developers to MS.

If a model was created where the software companies could actually get a piece of the used game pie it wouldn't be an issue. However Gamestop is being greedy and the software developers are suffering. One answer is digital distribution, but we are not there yet on the consoles.

Think about it. If you developed a game, and made a single sale from it....then see a store making constant sales off the game at $5 cheaper wouldn't you be unhappy? Your not seeing that $$. Therefore you have less $$ to develop new games. How many used sales take away from the legitimate sales? Used sales do not support the software companies that made the game, they line the pockets of the retailer.

 

[ImpulsE69]

How does that not equate to greed? If it's about the devs maybe MS should take a smaller slice from the profits? Oh but wait, why should they do that? ...exactly. It's greed.

With your argument, the used market for everything shouldn't exist because it's taking away from the original makers. Guess we better burn down every home that's had someone living in it and build a new one. It isn't like the used market is anything new. It's just one more thing they want to control because "gasp" they want more money. It has nothing to do with attracting more devs.

It's greed. Did I mention, it's greed?

If you sold a game, then the person who bought it sold it to someone, who in turn sold it to someone, you aren't out any money because you already got your money from that game. It's a twisted mindset of people who for some reason think they can have it both ways when it comes to intellectual property. They want all the "rights and legalities" of everything else (ala stealing), but don't want a second hand market that everything else enjoys. This can all be nicely summed up with all the "omg my game didn't suck, it's the pirates, it's the used market" BS they've been touting for years. All of it is just trumped up excuses. Explain to me why games cost $60? Very few are actually worth that. Even in the PC market, they try the $60 with digital downloads. You get rid of the usesd market, the rental market is next. Once that happens, watch how those prices rise, and do not come down..

It's greed. Anyone who clams differently is blind.

 

[Rage187]

If a model was created where the software companies could actually get a piece of the used game pie it wouldn't be an issue. However Gamestop is being greedy and the software developers are suffering. One answer is digital distribution, but we are not there yet on the consoles.

Sorry, but that's complete BS. Damn near every new game requires some one time use pass to play multiplayer or unlock specific levels. If you buy the game used, you are required to cough up $10. ALL of that money goes to the developer and publisher. So, that model exists and is in wide use.

 

[Sonikku]

Everyone is saying that there is no way in a million years gamers would go for this, but this is exactly how it is when fooling around with PC games in retail. You plug in your long ass one time use code and pray all you have to put up with is a one time online activation and not always active DRM or some other kind of crap.

And before I hear console gamers won't go for the same BS going on in PC's just remember there was a time when console games were practically bug free while PC games required patching and patching and fixing and fixing long after release. Now that consoles have Xbox live and shit developers have no problem shipping the same half assed products on consoles. And the masses just eat it up. 3-4 patches later and Dragon Age Origins still has game killing bugs in it as do many others. People will mope and complain. Right up to the point where they grudgingly keep on a buyin'.

 

[Gheris]

Sorry, but that's complete BS. Damn near every new game requires some one time use pass to play multiplayer or unlock specific levels. If you buy the game used, you are required to cough up $10. ALL of that money goes to the developer and publisher. So, that model exists and is in wide use.

That's assuming that:

A: Your buying a used game with multiplayer content.

B: You decide to take part in the mutiplayer portion of the game.

C: You honestly think that $10 is sufficient for games that cost a lot of money to make these days.

 

[Rage187]

That's assuming that:

A: Your buying a used game with multiplayer content.

B: You decide to take part in the mutiplayer portion of the game.

C: You honestly think that $10 is sufficient for games that cost a lot of money to make these days.

It's not just multiplayer that's locked. They are locking parts of the single player games now without the codes.

Plus, games get resold more than once, which means another opportunity to sell the codes and additional DLC.

 

[Gheris]

How does that not equate to greed? If it's about the devs maybe MS should take a smaller slice from the profits? Oh but wait, why should they do that? ...exactly. It's greed.

With your argument, the used market for everything shouldn't exist because it's taking away from the original makers. Guess we better burn down every home that's had someone living in it and build a new one. It isn't like the used market is anything new. It's just one more thing they want to control because "gasp" they want more money. It has nothing to do with attracting more devs.

It's greed. Did I mention, it's greed?

If you sold a game, then the person who bought it sold it to someone, who in turn sold it to someone, you aren't out any money because you already got your money from that game. It's a twisted mindset of people who for some reason think they can have it both ways when it comes to intellectual property. They want all the "rights and legalities" of everything else (ala stealing), but don't want a second hand market that everything else enjoys. This can all be nicely summed up with all the "omg my game didn't suck, it's the pirates, it's the used market" BS they've been touting for years. All of it is just trumped up excuses. Explain to me why games cost $60? Very few are actually worth that. Even in the PC market, they try the $60 with digital downloads. You get rid of the usesd market, the rental market is next. Once that happens, watch how those prices rise, and do not come down..

It's greed. Anyone who clams differently is blind.

So by your example here, retailers that sell the used games are not greedy? Let's see they take back a game that you purchased for $60, give you a $20 credit then resell it for $55. The greed comes from all sides. They make $35 on that sale, plus whatever they made on the first. That's the minimum of course. The model must be highly successful because if Gamestop wasn't making a nice profit on it would have stopped. Also do not kid yourself into thinking this business is doing for the gamers. The second they stop turning a profit the used market will be dead there.

I never stated that $60 was a fair price for games. I buy them on sale, and it is rare for me to buy a new game. However you act as if these companies are rolling in the money. They are not. Creating the games cost money and the money comes from sales of the game. If a situation arises where the developers are not compensated for the sale of their goods then it hurts the company. In all honesty I would like to see the developers compensated on used sales. Especially smaller studios that just seem to be gobbled up by the bigger studios these days who then have there IPs turned to crap by said bigger company.

I do have a question though, do you think that developers should get a share of the used copies being sold by corporations?

 

[purbeast0]

do people really think games don't justify a $60 price? did any of you guys buy N64 or SNES games for $60, $70 or even $80? where were all the complainers about the prices back then?

and games now a days cost MMUUUUUCCCCCHHHHHH more to make than games back then did. beat uncharted 3 and look at the credits. just watch how many people were involved in making that game, and everyone of them had to receive some sort of compensation. and that is just the development portion, not the marketing campaigns and the actual media/cases needed to make the games.

i think $60 is absolutely nothing for the majority of the games i buy, considering how many hours of entertainment i get out of them. the ones i don't think are worth $60, i simply wait to find a deal on them on slickdeals or somewhere else.

 

[alent1234]

Wat? Perhaps they'd cede it to Sony or Nintendo . . . you know, companies that make game consoles. Even if Sony/Nintendo took similar methods to stop used game sales, you're still going to buy two of the three consoles.

Apple has no traction in the console gaming market, and no plans to enter it.

apple and other ARM device makers are increasing the power of their devices at 2x or more every year. and there are people buying new devices every year. I've read that 2012 should be the year of ARM hardware being as powerful as the x-box 360 or PS3 for gaming. another few years and even if it's not as powerful it will be good enough for a lot of people.

add an apple TV or HDMI like a lot of phones have and you have a game console in your hands every where you go. Apple even does coop split screen multiplayer for newer devices on an apple TV. and the games are mostly under $10 with most being $5 or less. and there is some really good stuff coming out now that's 50% to 70% as good as a console game

as far as digital downloads, i don't do them. i'm not paying full price for a game with no resale value. There will still be a lot of people that will buy the hyped $60 games on release day, but people like me will just keep the old 360, play the older games and just transition to iOS or another platform as they mature.

 

[Gheris]

It's not just multiplayer that's locked. They are locking parts of the single player games now without the codes.

Plus, games get resold more than once, which means another opportunity to sell the codes and additional DLC.

Hold on a moment. Are the parts being locked out considered additional content, or extra content? Such as "free" DLC? If so they are in their rights to not give you free content if you did not purchase the game in a manner in which they recieved compensation. That would be something for nothing correct? When you buy a used game from Gamestop your no longer compensating the developer. Your compensating a corporate entity that is reselling a used product. You won't get the same treatment. When you buy a used item from someone unless the warranty is transferrable it's buyer beware correct?

DLC is tricky like that, and I am not a fan of DLC in general as I feel much of it should have been included in the games before release. However developers are put under deadlines and cannot always get in all the content they would like.

 

[Aikouka]

It's not just multiplayer that's locked. They are locking parts of the single player games now without the codes.

You're forgetting the games that don't allow you to overwrite your saves:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_Evil:_The_Mercenaries_3D

The game received initial controversy upon release when it was discovered that the game's save data could not be erased. This implied that Capcom was attempting to curb the used-game market. Although Capcom VP Christian Svensson claims this feature was not a business decision, he states that a similar feature will likely not be implemented into future games because of the controversy it has generated.

 

[alent1234]

So by your example here, retailers that sell the used games are not greedy? Let's see they take back a game that you purchased for $60, give you a $20 credit then resell it for $55. The greed comes from all sides. They make $35 on that sale, plus whatever they made on the first. That's the minimum of course. The model must be highly successful because if Gamestop wasn't making a nice profit on it would have stopped. Also do not kid yourself into thinking this business is doing for the gamers. The second they stop turning a profit the used market will be dead there.

I never stated that $60 was a fair price for games. I buy them on sale, and it is rare for me to buy a new game. However you act as if these companies are rolling in the money. They are not. Creating the games cost money and the money comes from sales of the game. If a situation arises where the developers are not compensated for the sale of their goods then it hurts the company. In all honesty I would like to see the developers compensated on used sales. Especially smaller studios that just seem to be gobbled up by the bigger studios these days who then have there IPs turned to crap by said bigger company.

I do have a question though, do you think that developers should get a share of the used copies being sold by corporations?

A LOT of the cost of a new game is marketing these days. I think i read that Black Ops marketing budget was larger than the development budget and in the hundreds of millions of $$$. haven't played MW3 yet but isn't it based on a 5 year frostbite engine with some changes over the years?

These companies are going the way of the hollywood studios of spending ridiculous funds on marketing to get people to buy the product in the first week or so

 

[ImpulsE69]

So by your example here, retailers that sell the used games are not greedy? Let's see they take back a game that you purchased for $60, give you a $20 credit then resell it for $55. The greed comes from all sides. They make $35 on that sale, plus whatever they made on the first. That's the minimum of course. The model must be highly successful because if Gamestop wasn't making a nice profit on it would have stopped. Also do not kid yourself into thinking this business is doing for the gamers. The second they stop turning a profit the used market will be dead there.

I never stated that $60 was a fair price for games. I buy them on sale, and it is rare for me to buy a new game. However you act as if these companies are rolling in the money. They are not. Creating the games cost money and the money comes from sales of the game. If a situation arises where the developers are not compensated for the sale of their goods then it hurts the company. In all honesty I would like to see the developers compensated on used sales. Especially smaller studios that just seem to be gobbled up by the bigger studios these days who then have there IPs turned to crap by said bigger company.

I do have a question though, do you think that developers should get a share of the used copies being sold by corporations?

This is a back and forth argument that I doubt we'll ever agree on, but I'll say this. EVERYTHING costs money to make. What you are really saying is that devs deserve special treatment and protection as opposed to every other item manufactured and produced. The used market has been around much longer than software companies. Pawn shops do the EXACT same thing. All that doing away with the used market accomplishes is doing away with competition.

Look at this on a larger scale, not just from your DEV standpoint. If anyone is screwing the DEVS it's the software companies, not the used market.

As for your question. I wouldn't be opposed to that. If anyone deserves more money generally, it's the Devs. None of my comments are pointed at them.

 

[American Gunner]

DLC is tricky like that, and I am not a fan of DLC in general as I feel much of it should have been included in the games before release. However developers are put under deadlines and cannot always get in all the content they would like.

Except for all the people that have day 1 DLC. If this is true, then I can say fuck MS. I don't have all the money or time to buy every game I want brand new. If I do buy used, I usually get it from Amazon since Gamestop is a huge rip off.

 

[alent1234]

Hold on a moment. Are the parts being locked out considered additional content, or extra content? Such as "free" DLC? If so they are in their rights to not give you free content if you did not purchase the game in a manner in which they recieved compensation. That would be something for nothing correct? When you buy a used game from Gamestop your no longer compensating the developer. Your compensating a corporate entity that is reselling a used product. You won't get the same treatment. When you buy a used item from someone unless the warranty is transferrable it's buyer beware correct?

DLC is tricky like that, and I am not a fan of DLC in general as I feel much of it should have been included in the games before release. However developers are put under deadlines and cannot always get in all the content they would like.

DLC has been around with different names for 20 some years. in the 90's you would buy a $50 game and a year later there was an add on pack for $25 with more missions. the internet just allowed them to sell single items as well as new levels

 

[Gillbot]

That's assuming that:

A: Your buying a used game with multiplayer content.

B: You decide to take part in the mutiplayer portion of the game.

C: You honestly think that $10 is sufficient for games that cost a lot of money to make these days.

Then why is Angry Birds so popular? I bet that didn't cost a fortune? People want value, not bloat.