157
rate

When Developers Go Too Far

August 12, 2011 in Blog comments 9

TPV Writer Phil gives us his reasoning behind why developers are taking things way to far in regards to pre game activation codes, meaning everyone must soon buy single player games new and not used.

I was scrolling through the internet today as per usual looking around for what was new in the gaming world. I come across a strange article titled ‘RAGE- New purchase incentive’. This article caught my eye as I had been literally drooling over the screen-shots and game-play footage that had been gradually drip fed by id’s PR and marketing department since early last year.

Despite doing a great job of the marketing, what hadn’t been mentioned quite as much was that the game was getting it’s own redeemable code that means that pre-owned copies of the game will not be getting everything there is to offer.
ThePlayVault via theplayvault.com »
Favourite this article Add source
| More
Report!
News story attached to:

Comments

Register as a member to subscribe comments.
  • 0
    ShadowGuard Aug 13, 11
    I stand by the fact that developers deserve the money you put down on the game THEY MADE. Which is why I do not have a problem with the online passes like many other cheap gamers seem to. However, taking stuff out of the single player campaign is a little wrong in my opinion. I still think developers and retail companies should make a deal so they both make money on new and used games.
    • 0
      Fallen Royalty Aug 13, 11
      What makes videogames different from any other good? If I buy a couch or a coffee table from Ikea and five years down the road I decide to put up a Craigslist ad and sell it off, should Ikea be able to exact some kind of resale toll from the person I sell it to? What if I decide to pawn off a painting? Hasn't the artist or the print company already received payment for their good? The only reason developers do this where other companies can't is because you don't need to connect a painting to the internet to mount it on your wall.

      The resale of videogames doesn't affect the game industry any more than it affects every other industry that manufactures resellable goods -- I certainly wouldn't buy a sweater from the Salvation Army if the clothing company that manufactured it forced me to pay some kind of extra premium simply for buying it secondhand.
      • 1
        Bale Fire Aug 13, 11
        The difference between furniture and a game though is that the latter often has an online service. For instance if you were to buy Black Ops pre-owned and played it online, you would be straining Treyarch's services without ever giving them a dollar. It costs money to buy servers, test them, maintain and update them.

        This is why I can agree with ShadowGuard. As long as the price for the pass is reasonable, I can accept them in regards to those games with online multiplayer.
        • 1
          Fallen Royalty Aug 13, 11
          This is incorrect. You are in no way "straining their servers" by playing a used copy. It makes zero difference to them because a person playing a used copy that he bought secondhand could just as well be the original purchaser of that copy. They make x number of copies, therefore there are x number of players that could be accessing the servers at any given time. You see, once I sell my copy of a game, I can no longer play it online - the person who eventually purchases that used copy effectively takes my place.
        • 0
          Drogo Baggins Aug 13, 11
          @Fallen Royalty

          He said, "straining Treyarch's services", not "servers".
        • 0
          Bale Fire Aug 13, 11
          quote Drogo Baggins
          He said, "straining Treyarch's services", not "servers".
          Probably my fault for the awkward phrasing

          You do make a good point though Fallen Royalty. I honestly never even thought of the issue in those terms. I suppose you could argue that by selling the game to someone else you are prolonging the use of those online services, seeing as they are more likely to use them than someone who is tired of the game. Still that doesn't seem like a massive issue.

          I'll have to rethink my position on this.
      • 0
        ThePlayVault Aug 19, 11
        quote Fallen Royalty
        What makes videogames different from any other good? If I buy a couch or a coffee table from Ikea and five years down the road I decide to put up a Craigslist ad and sell it off, should Ikea be able to exact some kind of resale toll from the person I sell it to? What if I decide to pawn off a painting? Hasn't the artist or the print company already received payment for their good? The only reason developers do this where other companies can't is because you don't need to connect a painting to the internet to mount it on your wall.

        The resale of videogames doesn't affect the game industry any more than it affects every other industry that manufactures resellable goods -- I certainly wouldn't buy a sweater from the Salvation Army if the clothing company that manufactured it forced me to pay some kind of extra premium simply for buying it secondhand.
        I agree 100% with you. Movies and Books are the two other closest forms of entertainment media but the authors and movie producers do not get a cut of the profits from resale.

        I published this article because it is the personal opinion of one of my websites writers and we all hold our own view on this. My personal opinion is that the online pass is wrong. The game publishers and developers make a lot of money without it (such as EA) and without pre owned games some people may only be playing the few games they can afford, and if they do that they will surely only buy single player games they do not need to buy a pass for, in turn meaning less people playing on Xbox Live, in turn of this, meaning less people paying for Xbox Live each month/year.
  • 0
    whiskersmgoo Aug 14, 11
    Now i;m not 100% sure on how the retail side of games works but it was my understanding that the retailer buys the game from the publisher and that's it, there are no royalties or such (which if there was Pre-order sales would still have to pay).

    Now game publishers will always produce more than is necessary so supply > demand. But retailers will always buy more than is necassary. So in effect you are going to walk into a shop and see 5 copies of a game new, and one copy pre-owned for less. It makes no difference to the developer if you buy a new game, the retailer has already paid them, so why not get it cheaper.
    • 0
      Shinobi_razor Aug 14, 11
      retailers buy from distributors who buy from usually the publisher. retailers dont pay the distributor $60 per game so that they can make some profit, and distributors dont pay that much to the publisher for the same reason. so the publisher is only seeing maybe $40 per copy (i have no idea what the real figures are), then once they get their cut, whatevers left the developer gets. when you have a game that costs multi millions of dollars to make like games do now, the devs need around a couple million copies to sell to break even.

      so yeah it sucks that they are doing things like this now, but games are costing increasingly more to make and sometimes the devs arent able to make much profit without releasing DLC or online activation codes like this.

This news story is archived and is closed to comments now.