Prevent/discourage 2nd hand game purchasing

[mrbobbins]

Catwoman is a playable character in Batman Arkham City, unless you buy the game 2nd hand, then she's locked out unless you pay £7.99 to get access.
They say that the Catwoman bits are about 10% of the game, so are they taking away 10% if you buy a pre-owned copy?, or would you view it like the bonus items you get for preordering some games?.

http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2011/10/14/ ... oman-pass/

It does annoy me somewhat as many of my PS3 games are pre-owned (£45-£50 at launch, no thanks) and I probably would have picked up Arkham City in a couple of months, bit annoying that they are actively trying to discourage this though.

Me talking about Batman Arkham Asylum has convinced at least 1 other friend to buy and play it so the purchase of a pre-owned copy has provided them with some income!

What do you lot think of this?

[spoodie]

I think that I got a free copy of Batman with my new graphics card, that's what I think.

Obviously there's nothing to like about it as a consumer, but it's easy to understand why the games companies are going down this route. However if you're doing shit like that you better make sure that the first purchaser gets their monies worth.

[Roman Totale]

I am going to set up a car firm, and for any of them that get sold second hand I will remove the brakes unless an additional price is paid.

It's a bloody stupid idea - somehow the fact that someone else didn't want the game means that you have to, ultimately, pay full price for an already used game. Greed!

[Dog Pants]

It's kind of like the DLC argument, and I'm not sure how I feel about either. I don't buy pre-owned (I don't own a console, unless you count the Wii, which I don't), so it doesn't affect me, but I still get the niggling feeling it's a cheap shot. On the other hand, though, the second hand market detracts from sales. I'm considering arguing that it's actually more damaging to sales than piracy, because buying a second hand game shows that you're prepared to pay for it whereas pirating a game doesn't, but I'm not sure that argument holds much water. I suppose that if having some content missing means that game is even cheaper second hand then the consumer wins by getting the game cheaper even with the £8 upgrade, and the producers get a bit of money back they normally wouldn't. The only people who lose out are the game shops, who lets face it will still have a mark-up.

[Anery]

Buying pre owned games has been around since games were created, why is this a problem now? It's truly a money grabbing move a tax on second hand sales. Toss

[buzzmong]

It's a stupid idea.

One which I expect will cause no end of trouble.

The music industry doesn't do it because they've accepted there's no way for them to ever get money from it, games are just oddly placed due to internetness of them all. Wouldn't be surprised to see a law suit out of this in the future.

It's the type of thing I'd probably do if I won the Euromillions and could splash £50-100k on lawyers without blinking.

[FatherJack]

I can't see how it would be any different for them to have made her 0-day account-locked DLC*, free to unlock for the first buyer via a single-use code printed on a card in the packaging, but available in the store at £7.99 for anyone else.

*Whether "DLC" actually has to be downloadable or is locked content on the disk from the start doesn't really matter in this instance.

This way round though, it just looks like they're attacking second-hand game shops out of greed - reasoning that any money bought buying second-hand games is money that would otherwise be spent on buying their other new games. The negative feeling generated around this will make the second-hand value of this game plummet (probably going lower than the £7.99 the buyer would have to pay for the unlock within a year or two) meaning sellers will have even less money with which to buy another game.

I don't know how game rentals work, as unlike film rentals you don't get them any earlier than retail copies so stores probably don't pay any premium (or get any advertising revenue) on titles which are bought "for rent". This sort of thing is hurting that, too - and game makers should stop seeing it as a missed sale, more as an advertising opportunity and in addition try making some games that take longer than a few evenings to complete.

PC Games (without an appreciable second-hand or rental market) prove that if the price is low enough (ie: in a Steam sale) people will buy stuff, and that they will hold off buying until the price suits them. The publishers have to get it into their heads that the second-hand market doesn't exist purely to spite them and rob them of cash - it also there so people can sell their old games and buy more, newer ones.

Of course it also exists so that second-hand game stores can sell the same games twice (publisher only getting one sale), and prices between new and used are sometimes so narrow that they actively persuade customers to buy the used copy, which gives them a bigger margin.**

** They probably make less than £10 on a £40 new game, but can buy a week-old one back off you for £20 and put it back on the shelf used at £35.

[TezzRexx]

Buying pre owned games has been around since games were created, why is this a problem now? It's truly a money grabbing move a tax on second hand sales. Toss

I think it might be a bit of more to do with having the technology to enforce this. DLC wasn't around in last gen consoles but I imagine it was just as much of a problem for them financially.

I think the biggest gripe is more the fact its unlikely the development company will benefit from the sales and will likely just line the pockets further of the publishers.

[Joose]

Seems like a needless PR fail by the games companies. In a few years, damn near everything will digital distribution or streamed through things like onlive, making second hand games an impossibility without upsetting as many people.

I've got to admit, I'm torn on the second hand games subject. On the one hand, games do tend to be silly expensive, and second hand games have meant I could afford a lot more games than I otherwise would. On the other hand, if I was a games developer, I would get pretty pissed at people getting my shit without paying me anything for it, which is what happens when you buy a second hand game.

I think a better solution, which would make everyone reasonably happy, would be to make second hand games impossible in some way (one off activation codes tied to a username or something) but to also sell them at less stupidly expensive prices. Everyone wins. Except second hand game shops, obviously.

[buzzmong]

On the other hand, if I was a games developer, I would get pretty pissed at people getting my shit without paying me anything for it, which is what happens when you buy a second hand game.

Why? Someone has already paid for the copy at full price. You've already got your money and no-one has stolen anything from you.

[Dog Pants]

Because it's not the CD and packaging you're paying for, it's the development. Same reason they charge for downloads. So it's not quite the same thing as buying a second hand car or underwear. That said, I can't fully convince myself that it's entirely different either, since buying a second hand copy and potentially denying the publishers an original same is only the same as buying a second hand car and denying that profit to the manufacturer.

[Joose]

That said, I can't fully convince myself that it's entirely different either, since buying a second hand copy and potentially denying the publishers an original same is only the same as buying a second hand car and denying that profit to the manufacturer.

Because like you say relatively speaking, a lot more of the cost of a car is materials. Virtually none of the price of a game is paying for the physical thing you are getting. Regardless of what side of the argument you are taking, I don't think comparing selling physical things to selling digital things is ever useful, they are just too different.

Why? Someone has already paid for the copy at full price. You've already got your money and no-one has stolen anything from you.

Because if you are willing to pay £20 for a second hand copy of the game, you are willing to pay money. So that's £20 that the games developer should be getting, but isn't.

Its a bit like the piracy argument, in that its not as straight forward as you might think. I just think that we as customers are a bit overly ready to shout "MONEY GRABBING BASTARDS!" at companies, just because they are trying to get paid for the thing that they made. This particular way of trying to do it might not be the best way, but I think its reasonable for the companies who make the game to get money when said game is sold, and with the second hand market that doesn't happen.

[The Shutting Downs]

Just got Arkham City.

They have forgotten to put the code for the 'catwoman' content in the 360 boxes, so you have to call a premium rate line to get the necessary code.

[spoodie]

Saw this on Reddit earlier. Printing fail

[mrbobbins]

[deject]

[HereComesPete]

[mrbobbins]

This surprised me:
http://www.next-gen.biz/news/newzoo-alm ... -pre-owned

Also: 'US and European gamers will spend a combined $1.7 billion on DLC in 2011'

That's a lot of hats