THQ: Pre-Owned Games 'Cheats Developers'

A little late, I know but I had to just jump in for a quick second to say "THQ, you can go eat a d*ck!"

That is all.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Toyota gets cheated every time someone sells a used car of theirs as well; they actually tout it as a feature that their products are so good they hold value.

If your games are so *(#@ that people immediately turn around and sell them for pennies on the dollar, it isn't the developer being cheated of revenue from an additional customer; it is the first customer being cheated by a developer pushing out shoddy content.
Click to expand...

/thread

I applaud your superior use of logic and reason. (no, that's not sarcasm)
 
I never buy used games. Steam > All. I refuse to buy a game that is not released on Steam these days. Too much of a hassle.
 
obs said:
All of those used items degrade over time and perform less than a new product. That is not true of digital goods (yes, even ones on dvds).
Click to expand...

I play primarily PC games and my viewpoint is based on that experience.

I disagree. A standard is set for what a "new" game should do in terms of graphics, sound quality, features, etc. A 2 year old game or 5 year old game does not compare to a new game.

Buy some of the old games for sale on steam for $5 or $10. When they came out they were hot, now the pathetic voice acting, or jerky graphics make your ears bleed and your eyes twitch.

A very few games retain value (The original Halo), most however degrade by comparison to what is being released as new.

There is a window of time a game can be sold based on its features (including what DX, Open GL it uses). The used market is an echo of the new market. A few copies will show up of just released games, most start showing up a few months later, when the game is no longer "hot" or the new "must-have" thing. After a time even the game stops of the world stop selling them because the shelf space can be better used.

I would also like to point out that used game stores can not have any kind of numbers of copies unless a large quantity of "new" sales has been made. There is a certain amount of attrition, some copies get lost, broken etc, not everyone sells their games to the secondary market.

I would also point out all th arguments about the secondary market include just giving the game away, to your friend, your little brother/sister, whoever. You cheated THQ (or whoever) out of their sale.

The debate it really pointless. The real matter, what will decide this in court or congress, is whether software is a licence to use or real property. To many people try to make it both, despite the contradicting properties of both. I say if I need the disk in a drive to play it is property (anyone getting around that restriction in order to make money has broken existing law) if you don't need to have the disk in a drive it is a licence.
 
Lots of comments on here.. my take... THQ Can go fuck themselves...honestly...when you buy a game, and cant resell it to someone for some cash back to buy another game, while basically fucking over your friend or some guy on an auction site who doesnt get the full version of the game you paid for, its no wonder piracy is a major problem... who the hell can respectfully purchase a product you dont actually own anyway?...

This isnt just a game problem, this is a world wide problem of a bunch of greedy corporations and industry executives in all facets of industry who are poking a caged animal with a stick... eventually.. they will piss off that animal to the point where he snaps, breaks free, and absolutely fucking destroys the person(s) fucking with him... I can't wait for that day... No mercy, nor remorse...just watching that animal absolutely eradicate everything in their path...Now you know why corporate security pays so well... they are going to earn it one day...lol
 
Just because its a video game doesn't mean its different from all other stuff that people have been buying second hand. People have been doing it with music cd, DVDs, decorative items, toys, etc etc... you name it.

Are we going to bitch about all the second hand graphic cards and CPU that is being sold at this forum and many other forum and sites as well?

We sell off our computer hardware that we no longer needs. Whats wrong with selling off games that we no longer need?
 
Companies are trying to undermine the First Sale doctrine concept as usual. They try to push this idea that you're not "buying" a "product", but "buying" a "limited license" that has very narrow terms.

The younger folks are accepting this, so it is working. The PR campaign and pressure by companies is convincing them. The ease of use for Steam and the like convinces people also to give up their right to resell.

I refuse to do it. I can understand charging a few bucks for server access, perhaps. They can get an ongoing cost. But I think it is simply going with the stick approach, when the carrot is a lot smarter.

I will not buy something that is non-transferrable or has agonizingly annoying DRM. I have a ceiling for that kind of purchase - it's a rental. So that ceiling is around an expensive rental price. Generally it takes sub-$10 to get me to consider it.
 
I am more likely to buy a game new if I can sell it later and get some of my money back. QED.
 
GreenMonkey said:
The ease of use for Steam and the like convinces people also to give up their right to resell.

I will not buy something that is non-transferable or has agonizingly annoying DRM. I have a ceiling for that kind of purchase - it's a rental. So that ceiling is around an expensive rental price. Generally it takes sub-$10 to get me to consider it.
Click to expand...

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1035908815&postcount=120

I have bought over 300 games through Steam.

I can guarantee you that I've spent well below that almost $5K mark that the Steam calculator suggests I have paid.

If you average my account out, I am positive I am well below your suggested $10/game mark.

I buy through Steam due to the prices.

And by your own statement, you should be considering Steam as well.
 
So by that logic do I cheat devs by buying games when they hit $20 and go into the bargain bin? No, I buy a game I wouldn't have bought previously because I'm not willing to pay $50-60 for a freaking video game. Let's look at it another way. Say someone buys a used game, plays it, and likes it. Then they play some other titles from developer X. They think, "Wow, these guys rock, I can't wait until they make their next game."

THQ is missing a great marketing opportunity. Rewarding new purchases is great, but why not cash in on those used game purchases instead of whining about them? Give the one-time code to new purchases, sure, but if someone buys the game used, give them the option of paying a small fee if they wish to get in on that additional content. That way everyone wins. New game buyers get it all, used buyers can still buy used and do nothing if they want, or they can choose to plunk a little bit of cash in the dev's pocket and get the extra content they'd miss by not buying new, and the dev makes some money where they otherwise wouldn't.
 
you guys are mostly retarded. They are not saying that people who buy used are going to never get multiplayer. They are saying that to get multiplayer they will have to purchase the online membership. Its not like this isnt already going on. Madden did it last year for online franchise, and now this year for all online features. they even give you a trial of the online features to see if you like them and give the option of paying for permanent access. THQ isnt saying that used gamers arent ever going to have a shot at playing what ever content they included with the game new. They are saying they will be making money on the resale. I think alot of you need to read more then steve's short blurb about what was said before making uninformed comments.
 
Headpunter said:
you guys are mostly retarded. They are not saying that people who buy used are going to never get multiplayer. They are saying that to get multiplayer they will have to purchase the online membership.
Click to expand...
I think what THQ was trying to say is that used gamers are cheating them out of server resources because they don't consider that part of the initial purchase price. That attitude, while I disagree with it, is not particularly offensive. I feel cheated when developers force me to use their (poorly maintained, laggy) servers that they then shut down 2 years later, and since they pulled LAN play and direct connect options for no (good) reason, multiplayer is completely useless to me from then on. My complaint is far more valid IMO, so let's call it even, mmkay THQ?

I think a lot of the backlash is coming from Tycho's post at PA in response where he very clearly says he thinks all used sales are akin to piracy as far as the developer is concerned. That's a very shortsighted, offensive, and stupid view to take, and it deserves some backlash, especially if this is how developers actually feel about it.
 
keenan said:
I think a lot of the backlash is coming from Tycho's post at PA in response where he very clearly says he thinks all used sales are akin to piracy as far as the developer is concerned. That's a very shortsighted, offensive, and stupid view to take, and it deserves some backlash, especially if this is how developers actually feel about it.
Click to expand...

According to Microsoft's EULA, it is piracy.

What wrong with other devs following in MS's footsteps to help their bottom line?
 
The publishers need to shut what we call the fuck up. Seriously, you name for me a market that doesn't have used goods. It is just a fact of life. People will sell the old stuff they don't want. If you can't make money in that event the problem is not people selling your stuff, the problem is your business model.

Cars are a great example, there is probably nothing with as many used sales as cars. People buy used all the time, they spend a good deal of money fixing up cars with problems rather than purchasing new replacements, etc. What's more, there's a major push to make your cars last longer. People won't buy your product if they think it will fail soon, they want something that last a long, long time.

Despite all that, there's plenty to be made on new car sales.

In the case of videogames if the want less used sales they need to make the games more fun to replay. I have a large collection of games that I am completely unwilling to get rid of, some quite old. Reason is I still want to play them sometimes. So I will keep them forever, or until I lose them.

If companies have heavy used turnover, that means they are making games that aren't that entertaining. Someone buys it, play it, says "meh," and then sells it off. That means you did a bad job on the game. Don't bitch about it, fix it, make your next game better, make people want to keep it.

To me it sounds like they just want more money for less work. Ultimately, I think it'll backfire as people will buy less if they know they can't sell it. After all, if a game gets mediocre reviews, maybe you get it anyhow if you know you can sell it later. However if you are stuck with it, maybe you give it a miss entirely.
 
Headpunter said:
you guys are mostly retarded. They are not saying that people who buy used are going to never get multiplayer. They are saying that to get multiplayer they will have to purchase the online membership.
Click to expand...

Example 1: Person A buys game XYZ for $60, plays online multiplayer for 6 months.
Example 2: Person B buys game XYZ for $60, plays online for 3 months, then sells the game to person C who then plays online for 3 months.

Where has the developer lost out between Examples 1 & 2? What is the extra burden?

If THQ is so confident then they should instead some selling software and instead sell subscriptions. $10 a month, you can play any THQ game for as long as you have an active subscription.

I will not use Steam because of their DRM. However that being said I have purchased every game Blizzard has put out and I am ok having to log in everytime I want to play Starcraft or WoW. We have 3 accounts for WoW, so thats $45 a month to one game company. But Blizzard has won my trust due to 15 years of awesomness.
 
Tolyngee said:
According to Microsoft's EULA, it is piracy.
Click to expand...
Since when does MS write laws or direct moral codes? Microsoft can stuff it too. Especially given Vernor v. Autodesk, I don't think this aspect of the EULA would even hold up in court.

To address your point more directly though, the markets are very different. Microsoft's products are not nearly as resellable; almost all users will never be motivated to sell an operating system since chances are they're still using it. Games on the other hand have far more variety, and users typically finish with them after a period of play, since most games these days have pretty crummy replay value.

Frankly I think games are more comparable to books or movies than they are to non-game software. Aside from the truly excellent ones, most people don't really use them again after they've finished with it the first time. They're an entertainment product, not a tool like most other software.
 
keenan said:
Microsoft's products are not nearly as resellable
Click to expand...

Microsoft's software products are not re-sellable at all.

I don't think you even realize what products MS produces, since you only mentioned their OS division.

You'd think since you know about some other MS lawsuit, that you'd know that they attempted a break-up of MS a decade ago.

They attempted to break them up not because they are an OS company, but because they are a software company.
 
Tolyngee said:
Microsoft's software products are not re-sellable at all.
Click to expand...
I meant to the user, conceptually. Why would I resell Windows? To buy another copy of the identical product? But in the unrelated way you mean, yes they are, they just don't like it and tell you that you can't. It might be illegal, but it has not been directly tested, though the case I mentioned is a very similar situation and I think it applies directly.

Vernor v. Autodesk was a case some time ago where someone was breaking up Autodesk 'package deal' box sets and selling them individually on eBay. The judgement was, to put it simply, that if it's sold in a box at a shop with a perpetual use agreement, it is a hard good and can be resold at will under first sale doctrine, EULA be damned.

I don't think you even realize what products MS produces, since you only mentioned their OS division.
Click to expand...
If you can't understand how the argument I present relates to pretty much everything Microsoft produces, outside of their gaming division, you have no reading comprehension skills. They are products that people tend to use continuously until a replacement is available, they don't tend to be things that people get bored of and stop using with new and compelling competition constantly for user's eyes and dollars.
 
Tolyngee said:
Microsoft's software products are not re-sellable at all.

I don't think you even realize what products MS produces, since you only mentioned their OS division.

You'd think since you know about some other MS lawsuit, that you'd know that they attempted a break-up of MS a decade ago.

They attempted to break them up not because they are an OS company, but because they are a software company.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? You can resell an retail copy of Office, Windows, or whatever.

Tolyngee said:
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1035908815&postcount=120

I have bought over 300 games through Steam.

I can guarantee you that I've spent well below that almost $5K mark that the Steam calculator suggests I have paid.

If you average my account out, I am positive I am well below your suggested $10/game mark.

I buy through Steam due to the prices.

And by your own statement, you should be considering Steam as well.
Click to expand...

Your average is $10 over 300 games. How many did you pay $40-$50 for, and how many like $2? I didn't say average.

And I'm RELUCTANTLY willing to do a $10 rental. Rarely. Not "Yay, $10 and no reselling rights!" I think it over very carefully, because it's 100% money I can never get back. My only Steam game to date is Team Fortress 2 ($10 at Best Buy). I picked up a DRM'd downloadable Mass Effect for $5. And I've bought a decent handful XBLA games - but mainly using discounted points cards, for what figures to about ~$3-$7 or so.
 
I don't care for most of the "online" features in games these days. Even ones with good online play. I like to play madden, just not online. Looking at the content downloads, madden has a lot of day 1 stuff for .99 - $2. Screw that.
 
GreenMonkey said:
And I'm RELUCTANTLY willing to do a $10 rental. Rarely.
Click to expand...

Personally I think Steam strikes a fairly good balance, and in a lot of cases it's enough for me to be willing to give up resale rights and physical media. I don't think I'd ever buy a new single player game via Steam for full price. Ever. However, the digital distribution does have advantages that are compelling, and for $25 for an excellent game like TF2 or even the $50 or whatever it was I paid for Orange Box, it's easy, fast, inexpensive and overall very painless. Or for the great sales they have, like $10 for the Civ4 pack, which I've played the heck out of since the beginning of the summer when I bought it. I'm not a huge gamer and I just don't have the wherewithal to try and hunt down good prices on interesting older games at brick and mortar stores, but impulse buys on Steam are compelling and effortless. Most of what I spend at Steam is money I just wouldn't be spending on gaming otherwise.

I don't like that it's all DRM'd to hell with no resale, but Valve (publishers notwithstanding) has shown themselves to be managing it well. The experience is painless, and I do have faith that they will continue to operate it in the reasonably fair and consumer friendly way they do now, even if the system is ever to be shut down, I'm reasonably confident they're not just going to leave everyone out to dry.

Point is though that they're actually offering something compelling in exchange for the loss of resale - ease of management and interesting impulse buys and sales - not just trying to save on distribution costs and shaft the customer like most publishers are doing with DD.
 
So, if 100k people and then all turn and sell it used, then THQ now has no customers and such could just shut down their servers?
 
I am sure that they feel the person is the same as someone who gets a cracked game.
FU$%^ING THIEF

They are not.

Just another example of the we want more for less.
AND F THE CUSTOMER they should bow down and kiss our ass.
 
Zellio2010 said:
So, if 100k people and then all turn and sell it used, then THQ now has no customers and such could just shut down their servers?
Click to expand...

What difference does that make???? The first 100k wouldn't be playing on the servers...

So lets say the 100k DIDN'T sell the game and continued playing online. THQ still wouldn't be getting more money and they STILL would shut down the servers...
 
I can understand both sides of the argument about this.

However, to say that used games = piracy is just an ignorant stance to take.

Personally I think THQ and other devs are probably more pissed about the fact that companies like GameStop make mad bank off the used game sells. Plus they tend to push used games sales and trade in's down peoples throats maximizing the stores profits at the expense of the devs.

I can imagine THQ looks at it like this:


GameStop thug: "Hey Billy, when you are done playing this new UFC Undisputed 2010 you should trade it back in towards a new game!"


THQ translation: "Hey Billy, when you are done playing this new UFC Undisputed 2010, you should trade it back in towards a new game that way we can offer you way less than half what you paid for it and then resell it for only $5 less than brand new. We make crazy money this way and can maximize our profits by double dipping the same game. We have share holders that we have to answer to and all they care about is the price off our stock. Plus are CEO needs a new Bentley. Have you heard about our game warranties..."




Perhaps a solution should be that any game that gets sold used via a retail store has to pay a certain percentage of the sale back to the publisher/developer? Obviously wouldn't apply to Craigslist or eBay sales.

Now that Target and Best Buy are getting in on the used game action, I wouldn't be surprised if more developers don't start getting far more vocal about this.
 
GreenMonkey said:
Companies are trying to undermine the First Sale doctrine concept as usual. They try to push this idea that you're not "buying" a "product", but "buying" a "limited license" that has very narrow terms.

The younger folks are accepting this, so it is working. The PR campaign and pressure by companies is convincing them. The ease of use for Steam and the like convinces people also to give up their right to resell.

I will not buy something that is non-transferrable or has agonizingly annoying DRM. I have a ceiling for that kind of purchase - it's a rental. So that ceiling is around an expensive rental price. Generally it takes sub-$10 to get me to consider it.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is pretty sad to see the gullible actually take up the corporate charge to undermine our rights, and there own for that matter.

I agree completely on the rental. Any DRM activation scheme is a rental for that the short sighted don't realize. Still even sub-$10 there are better choices than DRMd rental, like GOG:
Classic games, all under $10, All DRM FREE!.
Often they are bundles like the Total Annihilation pack (great game) for $5!
http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/total_anihilation_commander_pack
 
dandirk said:
What difference does that make???? The first 100k wouldn't be playing on the servers...

So lets say the 100k DIDN'T sell the game and continued playing online. THQ still wouldn't be getting more money and they STILL would shut down the servers...
Click to expand...

There is that.

THQ should realise that a used copy sold this time might also be scoring them a new customer next time they release a title. I bought a few used games in the 90's which turned me onto developers I wouldn't have purchased from before, but bought their games new after I got a taste.
 
NKDietrich said:
Physical property has a number of aspects that make new better than old. Warrantys, less wear & tear, longer lifespan, guaranteed to not have any hidden damage that the seller didn't tell you about, more modern appearance, more features than an older model, whatever.

Traditionally, software hasn't had that. A used copy is the same as a new copy and there's no point in ever buying new unless you're just OCD and can't stand owning something that was used.

I think it's fair to try and give some incentive to buying new software over old, just like in every other industry in the world.
Click to expand...

Ok this thread is way too long as it is but I have to attack this line of thinking.

Because the other side of this coin is with a car, you physically have to put the same amount of material into it to make a new, however with software you don't other than the CD/DVD and packaging materials (which make up a very small fraction of the total cost of games) you don't have produce anything more to make a brand new one.

So if you're going to argue a used copy is just as good as a new copy, I'm going to argue that they put no (very little) money into making new copies. After they pay the developer, (ignoring things like advertising) they can make a million copies of a game, or 100 copies in an instant.
 
Guess it's time for all of us to make throwaway accounts, so we can sell old games with all the online features and whatever else. THQ can suck it. I can't even think of a single game they created that warrants me buying it. New or used.

I'm pretty sure their crap sales have nothing to do with used games.
 
The simple fact is, and it's not something you can argue, bartering is the foundation of free trade. By attempting to destroy bartering, THQ is trying to form a monopoly on game sales.
 
And don't give me this 'liscense' crap. that's an abuse of free trade.

As much as I hate pirates, this pisses me off too. Companies who have abused DMCA need to have an anti-trust lawsuit thrust on them.
 
the used car argument, you need to buy parts for that used car, especially if you wreck it.

Another analogy is a movie ticket. You buy two, watch the movie with your girlfriend and then pass them on to your buddy who does the same. The cost is exactly the same, considering concessions. Although in this case he is going to have to pay for concessions. But the movie producer gets nothing.

A game is more of an experience. Once you have the experience you have gotten your moneys worth. It should not be something that can keep giving to everyone.

Look, you guys love games and love playing them. But they have to make money to develop those games you love. No money and game companies go bust. It is easy to say MW2 made tons of money but that is pretty much the rare exception. But check the past year and see how many developers tanked. More than a few.
 
jiminator said:
Another analogy is a movie ticket. You buy two, watch the movie with your girlfriend and then pass them on to your buddy who does the same. The cost is exactly the same, considering concessions. Although in this case he is going to have to pay for concessions. But the movie producer gets nothing.

A game is more of an experience. Once you have the experience you have gotten your moneys worth. It should not be something that can keep giving to everyone.
Click to expand...

More like another flawed rationalization for your corporate masters.

The equivalent game "experience" is an arcade. But just like the theater experience, you can buy a permanent physical version to do with what you will as it is your property.

DVDs and Hardcopy games are that product. Because of first sale doctrine you are legally entitled to resell them and the original creator can go suck eggs. This applies to books/movies/games/electronics/furniture etc, etc, etc.... There is no logical difference.

It is just greedy publishers who are trying to steal our property rights with technical exploits which aim to prevent us from exercising our rights.

Just like EA before them (who essentially claimed the same thing) I have the same answer. I don't need your product and won't agree to your attempt to diminish my rights. I simply won't buy any of your product.
 
Let's not kid ourselves - buying used games does rip off the developers.

There is no incentive to buy a new game when you can get the same exact product used for half the price, which is what I used to do by purchasing games through Half.com and through the forums.

There is no "wear and tear" on a disc unless someone has mishandled it, and you get everything the initial buyer got, just at less cost.

I completely understand the need for Day One DLC and the Cerberus Network and such.

You can rationalize it any desperate way you want, but when you buy a used game, you are not supporting the developer.
 
Matrices said:
Let's not kid ourselves - buying used games does rip off the developers.

There is no incentive to buy a new game when you can get the same exact product used for half the price, which is what I used to do by purchasing games through Half.com and through the forums.

There is no "wear and tear" on a disc unless someone has mishandled it, and you get everything the initial buyer got, just at less cost.

I completely understand the need for Day One DLC and the Cerberus Network and such.

You can rationalize it any desperate way you want, but when you buy a used game, you are not supporting the developer.
Click to expand...

Capitalism works both ways. We aren't here to prop up companies just like companies aren't here to prop us up. We want to save money, make money, and prosper. Don't like it? Get out of the game dev business or just leverage your own digital distribution platform, partner with Steam, or get the fuck out.
 
Many posters here need to have a better understanding of economics and business law prior to posting irrational and illogical arguments.

1. Reselling a game is legal and could never be considered piracy, unless a person has created a backup and continues to play after the original has been resold.

2. Piracy is stealing, and thusly illegal. We're not talking about backups, unless it later conforms to #1. Pircacy is a criminal law case; resales fall under civil codes.

3. A EULA doesn't strictly constitute a binding legal agreement. The courts have ruled more than once (even against Microsoft) that this is true.

4. A EULA doesn't prevent piracy or legal backups. Only safeguards to make it difficult-to-impossible do so actually accomplish this, and these safeguards are entirely the responsibility of the companies making the profit on the product, and not the user, the ISP, the used game store, or anyone else.

5. In addition to, and not instead of #4, software/music/video companies need to promote their products in such a way as to make cost to the consumer and ease of access as close to being competitve with resales and piracy as much as possible. Prosecution after the fact is a sign of poor security and marketing/promotion practices. (Netflix is an outstanding example of a forward-thinking company who makes many movies [and more each day] available for streaming for a low-monthly fee, understanding that a computer/video user's desire for "instant gratification", and allows for it in such a way that it actually enhances their business. Check the historical stock prices if you don't believe me.)

If I bought a used game, then I'd be more than happy if the total cost to buy and play were attractively less than the new price. I'd even be more likely to go this route is it was difficult-to-impossible for me to obtain it and play it any other way. And if I can't afford it, then I should just save up until I can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top