Jimquisition: Fighting The 'Problem' Of Used Games

[Epona]

Fighting The 'Problem' Of Used Games

Fighting used games IS the problem.

Used games have been here all along as the industry grew to the greedy behemoth that is today. Used games helped it grow by introducing people to game franchises at a lower cost, people who would have never paid $50-$60 for new IP's but will after they've been hooked by a cheaper, used game.

It has been mentioned too many times, even by Jim himself, that the existence of used games increases sales of new games. The game industry treating used sales as the enemy shows how out of touch they are with reality.

 

[Nurb]

And how much money are car companies "losing" when someone "steals" from them and buys a used car from a lot without any cut?

Oh that's right, THEY DON'T ***** ABOUT IT.

Since the big publishers want to fuck up gaming with codes, DRM, exclusive game-unbalancing preorders, day-one pay-for DLC or just DLC in general while craming "social aspects" down our throats, they could at least take a lesson from the car companies and offer REWARDS for loyal customers and buyers of new model instead of using that loyalty to make them pay for extras and jump through more hoops to get it.

In the old days before the developers got ate up by publishers and got greedy, they'd release small bits of digital content or DLC as a reward for loyal customers between expansion packs. Now it's "Why should you get this shit for free, you potential theif?? Pay up or piss off!"

But they won't get it. They never do. The question is "Do you want me to buy your fucking game or not?", but the response to any legitimate criticism is to fuck off and not buy the game if we don't like something, THEN turn around and complain about low sales and used game purchases by people who weren't convinced the game was worth the new price tag... at which point the companies blame piracy for their low sales numbers because they CERTAINLY couldn't have been responsible in any way for lack of purchases with the way they do business or treat customers.

The big publishers continue to show they don't care about the product, or the customer, they just want every nickle and dime they can shake out of your pockets while treating you like a criminal with the invasive DRM, and I have zero sympathy for their cries of pity over unproven claims of piracy because I feel none of them are worth supporting anymore.

 

[shadowelancer]

All i have to say is THANKS FOR MAKING ME WANT SAINTS ROW THE THIRD TO COME OUT EVEN MORE. Although the instant it comes out im gonna play the SH*T out of it.

 

[vxicepickxv]

But... Alright, hang on a second. I don't get this. How is it that Locked Away Content A is being taken away from used buyers, but Locked Away Content B is being rewarded to new buyers?

I'll try to explain it like this.

Game A locked content = multiplayer
Game B locked content = some random ass cave somewhere.

I miss out on a good portion of Game A until I am FORCED to put in a code to play part of a game I already paid for.

With Game B, I miss out on some small random ass cave that doesn't really detract from the game, and I'm not required to put it in. I can do it whenever I feel like getting around to it.

 

[daxterx2005]

What on earth was the cat game? I want it!

 

[CD-R]

And people still complained about this system. Just look at the comments in the Escapist news article when they announced Rage was going to be doing this. (Although the title of the article was kind of misleading) Battlefield Bad Company 2 had a great system. You could still play the multiplayer if you got the game used you just couldn't play the periodically released new maps ( which were free by the way) unless you bought an access code.

To the complainers of this system I'll say the same thing I've said before. If you want the content then buy the game new or buy it used and pay for the dlc after. No one is going to cancel their pre-orders en masse or join your little boycott so you can save five dollars at GameStop.

 

[somonels]

At the start of the introduction I thought "Oh, no. Something happened to his sunglasses."

 

[Kenjitsuka]

Thank God for Jim Sterling remembering me to pre-order Saints Row the Third.
Because I believe it's such a great game that I will get my precious ?65 out of it when buying new. And that pre-order bonus is damned nice icing on a superb cake

 

[Scrustle]

Really? You don't mind the Rage pass thing? That seems unusual for you Jim...

But I personally think it's just as much of a dick move as locking off multiplayer. It doesn't matter what the content is that is locked, if it's already on the disc publishers have no right to deny it to you. You own the content, you bought the disc, they shouldn't be allowed to hold anything away from you. That's extortion.

But I agree that pre-order bonuses are fine too. They aren't things that are already on the game disc and aren't necessary to make the game a complete experience, but still offer an incentive to buy new. Although I would prefer that the DLC in question also be available for purchase separately. I should be allowed to have the content if I want it. I shouldn't be denied any possibility to access it because I didn't buy the game in a certain way. Not only does it act as an incentive to buy new it also makes more money for publishers as well. Since you would need to pay for it that would give you an incentive to buy the game new because that way you would get it for free, and it is a way for publishers to make extra money out of something which would not require them to put any more effort or money in to making new content. It's the perfect way to do it for both gamers and publishers! It's madness that this method isn't more widely used.

 

[Macrobstar]

What on earth was the cat game? I want it!

Saints row the third, the cat is an extra outfit, gun and vehicle

 

[RA92]

What on earth was the cat game? I want it!

<youtube=csTf2Z7xlQ0&ob=av3e>

<youtube=-UqMnyk6xow&feature=related>

<youtube=kVs7yQRPlYk>

 

[ThreeKneeNick]

Oh god, i thought that the sad news was that Sony, EA, Ubi etc sued you. For libel or something, who knows. You had me. I almost cried with you!

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I too don't think that a game is worth sixty dollars. Sure you can argue the length I play it for, or how much it cost to make the thing in the first place, but consider this.

The film Avatar cost 500 Million dollars to make. And it made back all of its money at the theatre alone. Then it was released on DVD for twenty bucks.

Your game might cost millions to make, but if a film can cost even more and still manage to sell at a low price, you're doing something wrong.

 

[DracoSuave]

I don't see a difference between giving free DLC only to new buyers and not giving some DLC to used buyers.

Online play isn't DLC.

What's the difference between taking a part of a game and calling it DLC or making a slightly smaller game and adding DLC? Would we even know?

Online play isn't DLC.

I can see the value of not putting the DLC right at the beginning and allowing players to put in the code at any time in the game, but I don't see why the bonus has to be small and insignificant.
More appreciation for the loyal fans paying full-price is a bigger bonus?

Online play isn't DLC.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

I don't have an problem with used games, I have a problem with retailers like gamestop. Their whole business model isn't about selling new games, its about getting people into their store and onto the used game treadmill.

Unlike other retailers gamestop and similar "pawn shop" retailers leech off the marketing and promotion of publishers to attract customers, then when the customer is in the store try their damndest to get customers to buy used which parasitically sucks up the publisher's portion of revenue. Publishers are too chicken to just say "no" which leads to the endless whining cycle.

Sadly unless it is stopped ubisoft DRM and D3 will be the model for every game with a higher budget. You don't pay for the game, you pay for an account on a server somewhere.

The nice thing is between steam, android, and other internet sources there are plenty of independent games that I can use to suck up my gaming time. I never have to look at another bland "visceral" "AAA" title again to scratch my gaming itch.

101 hours into Dungeons of Dredmor and still enjoying it...$5

I don't think any big publisher title is going to beat that.

 

[vivster]

are you stupid?
or did you just awake from a 2 year coma?

what you just explained is only hair splitting
just look at how consumers view dlc
they don't see it as something "extra"
they see it as something that was taken out of the game and feel ripped off just because they paid 5 dollars less for their game
same thing with your proposed "rewards"
used buyers will complain that the game is not complete and the evil publishers have locked away content from them just because they didn't pay more for the game

also it is very subjective what is only a tiny fraction or a big part of a game that's been taken away
i couldn't care less if i wouldn't have an online mode but i would be pissed off if they were taking something out of my single player experience

taking away online modes is the only reasonable way to implement such passes
because players actively cost the publisher money when they play on their servers
it's only fair that they pay for it

 

[DracoSuave]

This episode was stupid... seems to me like Jim was forced to make this episode cause it contradicts what he said in the others... I call bullshit.

When you accuse someone of making a contradiction, you should actually take the time to point out the contradiction.

Or were you going to say something about how he's for preorder bonuses and extra content for new game buyers but against entire gameplay modes like multiplayer and things like that.

Or, is this one of those 'I didn't watch the video so I'll pretend that it has contradictions in it' snark that has absolutely no place in reasonable discussion?

taking away online modes is the only reasonable way to implement such passes
because players actively cost the publisher money when they play on their servers
it's only fair that they pay for it

The publisher already has that server space paid for with the original purchase. They don't get to resell that server space to others, when that server space is bought and paid for and is therefore someone else's property.

Let's say, as an example, you as part of the contract of sale of a car include with it a lifetime supply of oil just for having that car. Now, that's part of the contract. If I own that car forever, you don't get to recharge me that because you've negotiated it into the contract. And, the amount of oil that car will use won't change. It's going to be the same amount no matter what.

Now, if I sell, give, or lend my car to someone else, you're not going to take extra oil expense. You'be already pledged that lifetime of oil. What I can do (and this is ABSOLUTELY legal) is sold my part of the contract to someone else. You are still contractually obligated to fulfill your part, but it's to someone else, not to me. My part of that contract has a value, it is legal consideration, and as such, may be traded LEGALLY in a contract.

In other words, by selling a game used, the contract with me to provide that server space is also salable. The publisher should be held to their agreements.

Another example: Let's say you owe a bank some money, and are paying it in installments. You know, a typical loan. The bank has the right to take that debt and sell it. You don't get to say 'Now, if you want me to pay you this debt I owe, you must give me money.' If you believe it works differently, burn all your money, because your entire monetary system is based on the concept of sold obligation.

In other words, the publisher's obligation to provide service to you should be fully transferable provided you recind your ability to utilize their service.

 

[Varya]

Man, I can't believe how many people thatare just being stubborn on this subject.
There IS a difference between being forced to enter a code to get online acces and getting a few bonus items as a gift for buying it new.
The main reason is; locking people out of a part of the game is douchy, giving people something extra isn't. To demand that you get EVERYTHING just because you bought the game isn't reasonable. To demand that you get the full game is. If you are willing to pay for an expansion,what difference does it make if it was ready on day 1? It's still something beyond what you paid for, and you have no right to it. If it isused as an incentive to make people buy the game new, awesome!
And yes, sometimes it's already on the disc, so you might get uppset that you can't access it, but concider this: "Come on! Don't be a baby!"
It's not there to fuck with you, it's just a simple way to distribute it. The only difference is that if it was a DLC you'd have to download it first. No other difference. Claiming it's yours by right could ultimately only lead to companies being forced to have it as DLC instead. You gain nothing, companies gain nothing, ultimately it'll just be a hastle for everyone.
In the end, don't be a dick, try and meet halfway. As long as you don't have to unlock an actuall integral part of the game, don't complain. Companies will try everything and if we dismiss their only decent attemt, will ahve to put up with wathever they'll try and do next. HINT: It'll suck

 

[Whodat]

I applaud you for using Rage as an example Jim. I didn't even know that they had that in the game to be honest.

 

[artanis_neravar]

I completely disagree.

Everyone should get that extra content. And it is really just being held back from the used sales.

Want a way to fight used sales? Simple: replay value. That's all it takes. Get them not to sell their games in the first place, there will be a shorter supply of used games and the customer will think more about getting a new copy rather than a used one.

Or, offer to buy back your own used games for more then the $2 game-stop is offering for it