No More Used Games?

X

x2

So I read an article the other day that said both Sony and Microsoft's new consoles will essentially not be able to play used games. Obviously this is just rumor at this point, but what if this becomes a reality? Have these companies become so out of touch with reality that they'd really try to kill the used game market in a time like this? The only way a lot of us can even game right now is because of used games and consoles. There's no way in hell I could drop $60 every time I wanted a new game! Are they that ignorant to the worlds financial situation??? Ugh...Guess all we can do is hope this never happens...
 
x2 said:
So I read an article the other day that said both Sony and Microsoft's new consoles will essentially not be able to play used games. Obviously this is just rumor at this point, but what if this becomes a reality? Have these companies become so out of touch with reality that they'd really try to kill the used game market in a time like this? The only way a lot of us can even game right now is because of used games and consoles. There's no way in hell I could drop $60 every time I wanted a new game! Are they that ignorant to the worlds financial situation??? Ugh...Guess all we can do is hope this never happens...
Click to expand...

If this becomes a reality I will be extremely pissed with the gaming world. I seldom buy used games but I often borrow/lend games to my friends and obviously this sort of "technology" wouldn't allow for that either
 
Nope, it wouldn't. From what I understand, if it's a used game you will only be able to access like a demo or trial of the game. You will have to pay for the "code" or something like that to unlock the whole game :-\

I don't think they understand how isolating this will be. Gaming has always been expensive, but thanks to used games/consoles, just about anybody could afford to game. If this becomes a reality, plus adding the rising cost of consoles, a HUGE chunk of the gaming market will essentially be killed. Gaming is not an essential part of living, and people will simply not take food off their table or gas out of their car to pay for video games.
 
It won't happen, not this generation at least. The only way to sell consoles is through distributors, and distributors make tons of money off used games, so console makers won't be able to cut out used games without pissing off the people they need to sell their stuff.

However, are things like online passes, microtransactions, DLC, and multiplayer going to drastically change what you actually pay for when you buy a disc? To find the answer to that we don't need to look at future consoles, because it's been happening for years.

The core issue here is those who make games, those who sell games, and those who buy games all have different ideas about what "games as property" means. I.E. when I "buy" a game from a store, what am I actually buying? The code on the disc? The ability to run certain lines of code on that disc under specific circumstances? The ability to access codes online through that disc? Etc. And right now, these three entities disagree BIG TIME.

The next consoles, whatever they will be, will in large part be designed as a reflection of what "property" means to the people making/selling videogames. If they're smart, it will also include the people buying them.
 
I find this, some what, very disturbing. I too, am one of those gamers who have been heavily affected by the economy. Bargain bin used games is the only way I have survived as a gamer. Or the second thought that ran through my mind, "Oh look another reason for me to be rooted into retro gaming."
 
Used games are unfortunately going to be a thing of the past eventually. Not only because companies want to stop them but because a majority of the public is starting to want digital distribution. Consumers are starting to want more streaming games like OnLive or digitized versions like Steam/Origin.

Like Stealth said, it's not going to happen this generation but people should start expecting used games sales to eventually die out. I personally still want physical media for everything (with the exception of PC games, that I'm fine with) but I don't expect it to live on forever.
 
stealth toilet said:
It won't happen, not this generation at least. The only way to sell consoles is through distributors, and distributors make tons of money off used games, so console makers won't be able to cut out used games without pissing off the people they need to sell their stuff.

However, are things like online passes, microtransactions, DLC, and multiplayer going to drastically change what you actually pay for when you buy a disc? To find the answer to that we don't need to look at future consoles, because it's been happening for years.

The core issue here is those who make games, those who sell games, and those who buy games all have different ideas about what "games as property" means. I.E. when I "buy" a game from a store, what am I actually buying? The code on the disc? The ability to run certain lines of code on that disc under specific circumstances? The ability to access codes online through that disc? Etc. And right now, these three entities disagree BIG TIME.

The next consoles, whatever they will be, will in large part be designed as a reflection of what "property" means to the people making/selling videogames. If they're smart, it will also include the people buying them.
Click to expand...

I hope you are right, but just that fact that it is already being talked about scares me. And the thing about your first point- if companies truly want to see used gaming die, I don't think they'd mind much if Gamestop and other small shops went out of business. I mean, there'd still be plenty of places to buy new gaming items such as Best Buy, Target, Walmart, etc,....
 
If they figure a way to pretty much kill off used gaming then I feel pretty confident piracy and circumvention will be a million times worse than what it is now. That community (the actual brains behind the coding not the average geek who can read a faq) will see it as a greater challenge and will go nuts. It's kinda like telling a frat boy "you wont chug that beer." It'd cost way too much money to police the rampant piracy that will ensue.
 
Ahhh... talking about those digital downloads reminded me of a piece that I read this past week on MSN. They were talking about eliminating physical money, coins, paper, because it was costing twice as much to produce it as its actual value. They were talking digital money, using debit cards and such.
Lets see,.. I would be using nothing to purchase and download nothing. ;D :lol No physical exchange. ::D
I am having a hard problem with such concepts. The gaming industry will go through a big change while switching to the digital downloads. And I think that the tablets will have a big influence as technology begins to change our perception of things. And the smart LCD tvs that are beginning to hit the market will also have their say. It will be hard to conceive the direction that gaming will go in the next few years.

Even though I hate the thought, there will come a time when used games will become a thing of the past and we will, at the time, be willing to accept it. Even embrace it.
 
SpartanEvolved said:
Haha, frat boy jokes.

Kill used games so that companies can actually make money off of their hard work.
Click to expand...

I don't think used games take THAT much profit away from companies, but in a way I wonder if this new "technology" could be better at fighting piracy? If that were the case I would be a little more ok with it. All I could hope is that they are fair about it and price accordingly. So for example a brand spankin' new game would be $50-60 and one that's been out for 2-3 years might be like $10-20. I would have no problem with a system like that.
 
SpartanEvolved said:
Kill used games so that companies can actually make money off of their hard work.
Click to expand...

They do.

There are more successful game developers, who are making more money on more platforms, right now than there ever has been before in the history of the industry. More companies make more money off their hard work right now, with a used games market, than ever before.

Plus, there's this underlying assumption that all used game sales and new game sales share an inverse relationship, i.e. every used game sale subtracts from one new game sale, but that's total conjecture. It's much more likely that many used game sales have minimal effect on new game sales, that is to say, people who buy games used would never have bought them new to begin with, so removing used games would not increase sales so much as it would keep people from playing games at all.

retro junkie said:
Ahhh... talking about those digital downloads reminded me of a piece that I read this past week on MSN. They were talking about eliminating physical money, coins, paper, because it was costing twice as much to produce it as its actual value. They were talking digital money, using debit cards and such.
Lets see,.. I would be using nothing to purchase and download nothing. ;D :lol No physical exchange. ::D
I am having a hard problem with such concepts.
Click to expand...

I get what you mean, but if you think about it, transactions involving paper money (physical currency) are just as abstract as digital ones. A piece of paper with some ink on it is just a piece of paper. The actual worth or value of it has nothing to do with it being a physical object; it's what that object represents that has value. The physical symbol is arbitrary, it could be a piece of paper, a chunk of metal, a bunch of twigs, or a plastic card. The currency itself doesn't matter, physical or digital.
 
I can see how corporate big wigs might think that used game sales kill new game sales though.

I love that I can still occasionally find good, used PS2 or SNES games that have not been in production for quite some time. I can play a game like Gradius IV for cheap instead of it collecting dust on a shelf. It is a downside to digital distribution that used games can't be sold though. Perhaps the distributors just figure that getting a few pennies for an out of date game while keeping the gamers from getting those pennies is worth killing the used market.
 
stealth toilet said:
They do.

There are more successful game developers, who are making more money on more platforms, right now than there ever has been before in the history of the industry. More companies make more money off their hard work right now, with a used games market, than ever before.

Plus, there's this underlying assumption that all used game sales and new game sales share an inverse relationship, i.e. every used game sale subtracts from one new game sale, but that's total conjecture. It's much more likely that many used game sales have minimal effect on new game sales, that is to say, people who buy games used would never have bought them new to begin with, so removing used games would not increase sales so much as it would keep people from playing games at all.

I get what you mean, but if you think about it, transactions involving paper money (physical currency) are just as abstract as digital ones. A piece of paper with some ink on it is just a piece of paper. The actual worth or value of it has nothing to do with it being a physical object; it's what that object represents that has value. The physical symbol is arbitrary, it could be a piece of paper, a chunk of metal, a bunch of twigs, or a plastic card. The currency itself doesn't matter, physical or digital.
Click to expand...

The research should be done. I would not say its a 1-1 relationship, but I would say that it is a fairly reasonable assumption that the existence of a used games market DOES negatively impact new game sales. The alternative, as you said, is not playing games. People might be choosier on what games they buy.
 
I wonder if such research would even be possible though. You are right - we can assume that there are at least some people who would buy a game new instead of used if they didn't have the choice. BUT, one also wonders how many people bought a game used because it was cheap, and then because of that experience ended up buying sequels new, or recommended it to their friends, or bought other games from the same developer because of it, and so on.

Most of the people who make games (not the people who sell them) would agree that the more people you can have playing your game, the better. Word of mouth and healthy player bases are the bread and butter of modern games, AND it's more rewarding for the developers to see a community form around something they made. Minecraft is a perfect example, where the creator (Notch) encouraged modders and "pirates" to aid the distribution of his game if they could, not just because it's an altruistic thing to do, but because he knows that being good to the community now will pay off big time when he decides to come out with a new game.

What the big publishers don't seem to get is that being too greedy now will actually net you less money later, UNLESS you manage to get enough clout in the industry to change it to your liking and insulate your outdated business model from the free market.

So basically... research? Sure. But I think there are already many concrete examples of why it's in the best interests of game makers to keep used/cheap/lent/shared games around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top