THQ's VP Has Plan For Used Games

[tubbs51]

THQ's VP's $40 game plan

 

it makes some sense but i hate buying stuff in game's store that would have been in the game...

[NickRad]

 

IGN: What is the biggest problem in the games industry right now?

 

Bilson: Used games.

 

IGN: Can you elaborate on that?

 

Bilson: It's really simple and very difficult. This isn't about the gamer, it's about the business. The amount of used games that move is a humongous amount and we don't see any of that revenue. When a retailer is selling it at $55 in a resale when they maybe bought it for $40. It doesn't really matter what they're selling it for, and I don't blame the used gamer at all for buying it at less money if they're getting the same thing.

 

The fact is we may get paid for 1.3 million units on a game when before used games we would have got 2 million units, and that's money we could reinvest into making games better. Making games better costs money, these games are really expensive.

 

Look at it this way, games are really expensive, and we have to sell a ton of units to pay for them, and we have to sell a ton a units knowing that another 30 or 40 percent or more are going to be sold that we're not making money on. That's taking away revenue that we would have had in the past. That's what really hurt the model badly, that, and it's just expensive to make great games.

 

IGN: I've heard the argument before that without the used business we'd have less people playing games…

 

Bilson: I don't get that. Here's what we have to do to answer that and it's not to abolish used games because there's a great advantage to discounted games for people who don't have enough money and we want to have more gamers. It's not that. What we have to do is give premium content to the new game so that it feels like there's more value there and that the used guy can choose to spend more money to get back to premium.

 

It's really important not to punish the used gamer in any way. I'll be honest, if I'm buying games with my own dollars, and if one is $60 and $40 for the same thing, I'm buying the $40 one myself. We're struggling to find ways to make more money on our investment so that we can make games at all. Because making these big, core games is really expensive. If somebody has a magic wand where we can make these things for $10 million and compete with Gears or War and Call of Duty. Give me that magic wand. It costs a fortune to compete, and you have to compete because only so many games are going to sell well now.

 

Doesn't matter THQ make sh*t games anyway

 

 

[The-King]

Doesn't matter THQ make sh*t games anyway

Bullsh*t.

 

Conker's Bad Fur Day, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Red Faction, Saints Row, Company Of Heroes, Metro 2033, Juiced, Destroy All Humans?

 

All sh*t, amirite?

[Vextroid]

IGN: What is the biggest problem in the games industry right now?

 

Bilson: Used games.

 

IGN: Can you elaborate on that?

 

Bilson: It's really simple and very difficult. This isn't about the gamer, it's about the business. The amount of used games that move is a humongous amount and we don't see any of that revenue. When a retailer is selling it at $55 in a resale when they maybe bought it for $40. It doesn't really matter what they're selling it for, and I don't blame the used gamer at all for buying it at less money if they're getting the same thing.

 

The fact is we may get paid for 1.3 million units on a game when before used games we would have got 2 million units, and that's money we could reinvest into making games better. Making games better costs money, these games are really expensive.

 

Look at it this way, games are really expensive, and we have to sell a ton of units to pay for them, and we have to sell a ton a units knowing that another 30 or 40 percent or more are going to be sold that we're not making money on. That's taking away revenue that we would have had in the past. That's what really hurt the model badly, that, and it's just expensive to make great games.

 

IGN: I've heard the argument before that without the used business we'd have less people playing games…

 

Bilson: I don't get that. Here's what we have to do to answer that and it's not to abolish used games because there's a great advantage to discounted games for people who don't have enough money and we want to have more gamers. It's not that. What we have to do is give premium content to the new game so that it feels like there's more value there and that the used guy can choose to spend more money to get back to premium.

 

It's really important not to punish the used gamer in any way. I'll be honest, if I'm buying games with my own dollars, and if one is $60 and $40 for the same thing, I'm buying the $40 one myself. We're struggling to find ways to make more money on our investment so that we can make games at all. Because making these big, core games is really expensive. If somebody has a magic wand where we can make these things for $10 million and compete with Gears or War and Call of Duty. Give me that magic wand. It costs a fortune to compete, and you have to compete because only so many games are going to sell well now.

 

Doesn't matter THQ make sh*t games anyway

What are you talking about?

 

Saints Row

Red Faction

Darksiders

Freespace

Warhammer40K

 

They are all developed by other studios though, I dont think THQ have made a game themselves in a long time.

 

 

OT: I didn't see aplan in the article. Either im not reading hard enough or. IOf its the add preimuim content to brand new games, other studios have been doing that. EA's online pass, Alan Wake had a code for DLC, Rock Band Export Codes etc)

[Barry Spock]

The guy seems to be hinting at releasing as a download only - not as a hardcopy on a disc, something that'd be non-transferable from on gamer reselling to the next.

 

Personally, it's like other forms of media - music or DVD of a movie. I fa person buys that disc they should have the right to sell it on.

 

What the dev guy needs to look at is creating games that are good enough on the re-playthrough, and classic in their content that the first buyer won't want to sell it.

Eg. I won't be selling my copy of GTA4 because it's awesome but I probably will sell Heavy Rain (if I ever bother to finish it) because it plays more like a novel, and once it's done, it's done.

[lt_yao]

Doesn't matter THQ make sh*t games anyway

Bullsh*t.

 

Conker's Bad Fur Day, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Red Faction, Saints Row, Company Of Heroes, Metro 2033, Juiced, Destroy All Humans?

 

All sh*t, amirite?

Pretty much.

[Adam Jensen]

It's a sh*t idea. I look at it this way. I bought a used Harley a couple of months ago and Harley Davidson Motorcycles didn't see a cent out of that. Why? Well, because I didn't buy a new bike from them! It works everywhere else, it should work with games. The problem is, there in no one greedier than video game developers.

[tubbs51]

IGN: What is the biggest problem in the games industry right now?

 

Bilson: Used games.

 

IGN: Can you elaborate on that?

 

Bilson: It's really simple and very difficult. This isn't about the gamer, it's about the business. The amount of used games that move is a humongous amount and we don't see any of that revenue. When a retailer is selling it at $55 in a resale when they maybe bought it for $40. It doesn't really matter what they're selling it for, and I don't blame the used gamer at all for buying it at less money if they're getting the same thing.

 

The fact is we may get paid for 1.3 million units on a game when before used games we would have got 2 million units, and that's money we could reinvest into making games better. Making games better costs money, these games are really expensive.

 

Look at it this way, games are really expensive, and we have to sell a ton of units to pay for them, and we have to sell a ton a units knowing that another 30 or 40 percent or more are going to be sold that we're not making money on. That's taking away revenue that we would have had in the past. That's what really hurt the model badly, that, and it's just expensive to make great games.

 

IGN: I've heard the argument before that without the used business we'd have less people playing games…

 

Bilson: I don't get that. Here's what we have to do to answer that and it's not to abolish used games because there's a great advantage to discounted games for people who don't have enough money and we want to have more gamers. It's not that. What we have to do is give premium content to the new game so that it feels like there's more value there and that the used guy can choose to spend more money to get back to premium.

 

It's really important not to punish the used gamer in any way. I'll be honest, if I'm buying games with my own dollars, and if one is $60 and $40 for the same thing, I'm buying the $40 one myself. We're struggling to find ways to make more money on our investment so that we can make games at all. Because making these big, core games is really expensive. If somebody has a magic wand where we can make these things for $10 million and compete with Gears or War and Call of Duty. Give me that magic wand. It costs a fortune to compete, and you have to compete because only so many games are going to sell well now.

 

Doesn't matter THQ make sh*t games anyway

What are you talking about?

 

Saints Row

Red Faction

Darksiders

Freespace

Warhammer40K

 

They are all developed by other studios though, I dont think THQ have made a game themselves in a long time.

 

 

OT: I didn't see aplan in the article. Either im not reading hard enough or. IOf its the add preimuim content to brand new games, other studios have been doing that. EA's online pass, Alan Wake had a code for DLC, Rock Band Export Codes etc)

What he pretty much said as his "plan" was to sell a game for $40 instead of $60 and let fans buy what they want in the in game store... similar to what The Sims Team has done with the Sims 3... except sell the game at $20 less... so in theory you could get a $60 game for $40 or invest more money into the game to get even more gameplay and content out of it... kinda like DLC but selling the base game at $40 instead of $60...

[Snake Without a Tongue]

 

The amount of used games that move is a humongous amount and we don't see any of that revenue.

 

You saw it when you sold the game the first time, jerk wad.

[riquenunes]

 

Conker's Bad Fur Day

They only published it.

[baptiste]

Conker's Bad Fur Day

They only published it.

How the f*ck is that relevant?

 

 

To be honest, I completly agree with them. In all aspects of the matter. As for the new plan, we'll just have to see how that turns out, but they have to be carefull not to fall into excess and make everything payable.

[Seddo]

They seem to be going the way of EA's 'project 10 dollar", buying the game new gets you free content where as buying used you have to buy the extra content. The thing is though, if you're waiting for the games to buy cheaper as used titles then after a few weeks there's plenty of online stores selling the new games at discounted prices anyway so you're able to pay a cheaper price and still get the content.

 

It won't be long until all the game publishers follow suit and starting doing their own little deals.

[Reconite]

The amount of used games that move is a humongous amount and we don't see any of that revenue.

You saw it when you sold the game the first time, jerk wad.

This.

 

What a f*cking retard, I don't understand why people keep saying that they're losing sales. If someone sells their used game they no longer own the game, but the publisher still got the cash from the first time he bought it retail.

[tubbs51]

They seem to be going the way of EA's 'project 10 dollar", buying the game new gets you free content where as buying used you have to buy the extra content. The thing is though, if you're waiting for the games to buy cheaper as used titles then after a few weeks there's plenty of online stores selling the new games at discounted prices anyway so you're able to pay a cheaper price and still get the content.

 

It won't be long until all the game publishers follow suit and starting doing their own little deals.

he actually disagrees with that... what he wanted to do was for $40 give a full game and for the ones who want more there'd be a store within the game to purchase additional content... no activation codes or anything... He says that he's a gamer too and the activation codes are annoying....

 

now if it would shut the game companies up on the Used game matter im all for it.... it seems like it would benefit both sides...

[darthYENIK]

The amount of used games that move is a humongous amount and we don't see any of that revenue.

You saw it when you sold the game the first time, jerk wad.

This.

 

What a f*cking retard, I don't understand why people keep saying that they're losing sales. If someone sells their used game they no longer own the game, but the publisher still got the cash from the first time he bought it retail.

Exactly. They want in on the cash the consumer saves/makes. This guy may say he doesn't want to disturb the consumer, yet he wants more of our money. I don't blame him, for wanting more money, it's a business. But these publishers who complain about used games, are unrealistic in their expectations.

[Darkshade12]

 

Doesn't matter THQ make sh*t games anyway

Bullsh*t.

 

Conker's Bad Fur Day, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Red Faction, Saints Row, Company Of Heroes, Metro 2033, Juiced, Destroy All Humans?

 

All sh*t, amirite?

Meh. i guess they are OK. But i don't care for those game that much. Each one of those games has another version made by different companies anyway, some better like GTA to Saints row for example.

[baptiste]

Doesn't matter THQ make sh*t games anyway

Bullsh*t.

 

Conker's Bad Fur Day, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Red Faction, Saints Row, Company Of Heroes, Metro 2033, Juiced, Destroy All Humans?

 

All sh*t, amirite?

Meh. i guess they are OK. But i don't care for those game that much. Each one of those games has another version made by different companies anyway, some better like GTA to Saints row for example.

ROFL. Nice one.

 

 

@Reconite, not really. What hes saying is that when people buy used games, the game is essentially trading hands (durr). So for what could be 2 sales, 1 from the original buyer, and 1 from the used games buyer comes down to being 1 sale all-together, as the extra money is going into the pocket of the original buyer. At the end of the day, in one case, they have one sale, and in the other, they have 2. As the second guy would have to buy it retail if he wanted it.

 

They dont care that the used games buyer might not buy the game at all if they have to buy it for more, as it doesnt loose them any sales if that guy buys it used anyway. However they do care if you buy used, as if buying used isnt an option and you really want the game, you'll buy it anyway, thus making another sale.

 

Basic economics. You may disagree, but at least understand what he's saying before raging.

[Reconite]

 

@Reconite, not really. What hes saying is that when people buy used games, the game is essentially trading hands (durr). So for what could be 2 sales, 1 from the original buyer, and 1 from the used games buyer comes down to being 1 sale all-together, as the extra money is going into the pocket of the original buyer. At the end of the day, in one case, they have one sale, and in the other, they have 2. As the second guy would have to buy it retail if he wanted it.

 

They dont care that the used games buyer might not buy the game at all if they have to buy it for more, as it doesnt loose them any sales if that guy buys it used anyway. However they do care if you buy used, as if buying used isnt an option and you really want the game, you'll buy it anyway, thus making another sale.

 

Basic economics. You may disagree, but at least understand what he's saying before raging.

Hey, I know what I'm talking about and I agree with what you're saying.

 

But if someone sells the game used, the person who bought it initially no longer f*cking owns it. It's not like they're making a copy of the game and selling it.

[baptiste]

@Reconite, not really. What hes saying is that when people buy used games, the game is essentially trading hands (durr). So for what could be 2 sales, 1 from the original buyer, and 1 from the used games buyer comes down to being 1 sale all-together, as the extra money is going into the pocket of the original buyer. At the end of the day, in one case, they have one sale, and in the other, they have 2. As the second guy would have to buy it retail if he wanted it.

 

They dont care that the used games buyer might not buy the game at all if they have to buy it for more, as it doesnt loose them any sales if that guy buys it used anyway. However they do care if you buy used, as if buying used isnt an option and you really want the game, you'll buy it anyway, thus making another sale.

 

Basic economics. You may disagree, but at least understand what he's saying before raging.

Hey, I know what I'm talking about and I agree with what you're saying.

 

But if someone sells the game used, the person who bought it initially no longer f*cking owns it. It's not like they're making a copy of the game and selling it.

Theres simply some/alot of gamers that play a game once/a couple of times and dont feel the need to ever play it again. With that logic, as an extreme example you might as well buy 100 copies and switch them around until everyone has had a play.

This is not true for most multi games, but THQ arnt exactly known for their multiplayer titles.

 

I completly understand where their coming from, its like if someone bought a microwave, and in a community of say, 10 households, they switched around the microwave according to who needed it at that time.

And it would probably work, of course it wouldnt be convenient and it would probably never happen, but thats not the point. The point is, if it did happen, I'd have absolulty no qualms with the people selling the microwaves doing stuff to ensure that people who needed a microwave bought one properly.

 

More-over, this leaves X company with absolulty no left-over money so invest into other products. This is especially true for video games, more investement=better games. So not only are they after the money that they rightfully deserve, but in the end, its better for us when better and more thought-out video games come out.

 

 

Either way, It's just you were saying they were not loosing sales, all I'm saying is that they are, and saying the contrary simply isnt true.

[padavoine]

 

Personally, it's like other forms of media - music or DVD of a movie. I fa person buys that disc they should have the right to sell it on.

They should have the right to do exactly what the seller says they have the right to do.

If THQ want to sell videogames that you can only play for 30 seconds, then they can do it, and no amount of you complaining that "you have the right to play it for more than 30 seconds" can stop them from doing it.

Of course, you probably wouldn't buy that videogame, but if they want to do it they can do it, and you don't have any intrinsic rights to resell-able video games.

 

 

It's a sh*t idea. I look at it this way. I bought a used Harley a couple of months ago and Harley Davidson Motorcycles didn't see a cent out of that. Why? Well, because I didn't buy a new bike from them! It works everywhere else, it should work with games. The problem is, there in no one greedier than video game developers.

Nice logic there.

Let's see what I can do with that:

PENS COST 2 DOLLARS SO VIDEO GAMES SHOULD COST 2 DOLLARS.

APPLES CAN'T BE RESOLD ONCE YOU'VE EATEN THEM SO VIDEO GAMES SHOULDN'T BE RESOLD EITHER.

VIDEO GAMES SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO REALLY FAST, LIKE HARLEY DAVIDSONS.

 

In this particular case, this is the bottom line.

Let p1 be the average price of video games, p2 be the average price at which they're sold used, and f be how frequently video games are resold.

The old price for a new video game was p1 - ( p2 * f ), ie the price you buy it at, minus the price you sell it at times the likelihood you do sell it.

The new price is just p1.

So it's a plain bump in video game price. If they think they'll make more money with a higher price, then it's the right thing to do for them.

Edited November 15, 2010 by padavoine

[Adam Jensen]

 

Personally, it's like other forms of media - music or DVD of a movie. I fa person buys that disc they should have the right to sell it on.

They should have the right to do exactly what the seller says they have the right to do.

If THQ want to sell videogames that you can only play for 30 seconds, then they can do it, and no amount of you complaining that "you have the right to play it for more than 30 seconds" can stop them from doing it.

Of course, you probably wouldn't buy that videogame, but if they want to do it they can do it, and you don't have any intrinsic rights to resell-able video games.

 

 

It's a sh*t idea. I look at it this way. I bought a used Harley a couple of months ago and Harley Davidson Motorcycles didn't see a cent out of that. Why? Well, because I didn't buy a new bike from them! It works everywhere else, it should work with games. The problem is, there in no one greedier than video game developers.

Nice logic there.

Let's see what I can do with that:

PENS COST 2 DOLLARS SO VIDEO GAMES SHOULD COST 2 DOLLARS.

APPLES CAN'T BE RESOLD ONCE YOU'VE EATEN THEM SO VIDEO GAMES SHOULDN'T BE RESOLD EITHER.

VIDEO GAMES SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO REALLY FAST, LIKE HARLEY DAVIDSONS.

You're an idiot.

 

My point is that people should be able to sell video games just like they are be able to sell anything else. You buy a game and at some point you decide to sell it. Why the f*ck should a company that made the game receive any more money for that game? You already bought it from the company so they have your money for that particular game already. It's just greed based entirely on greed. They should have no right to receive anymore income from that game.

[AmyJones]

this is my favorite bit. "I'm a core gamer, I play games all the time, and I don't want to do it. I personally don't want to do it. I have to believe other core gamers do want to do that and I have to be convinced because I can't even convince myself. I want to kick back on my couch for hours immersed in that environment"

 

What f*cking environment? If he don't want to play video games all the time than why the f*ck does he bother?

[baptiste]

Personally, it's like other forms of media - music or DVD of a movie. I fa person buys that disc they should have the right to sell it on.

They should have the right to do exactly what the seller says they have the right to do.

If THQ want to sell videogames that you can only play for 30 seconds, then they can do it, and no amount of you complaining that "you have the right to play it for more than 30 seconds" can stop them from doing it.

Of course, you probably wouldn't buy that videogame, but if they want to do it they can do it, and you don't have any intrinsic rights to resell-able video games.

 

 

It's a sh*t idea. I look at it this way. I bought a used Harley a couple of months ago and Harley Davidson Motorcycles didn't see a cent out of that. Why? Well, because I didn't buy a new bike from them! It works everywhere else, it should work with games. The problem is, there in no one greedier than video game developers.

Nice logic there.

Let's see what I can do with that:

PENS COST 2 DOLLARS SO VIDEO GAMES SHOULD COST 2 DOLLARS.

APPLES CAN'T BE RESOLD ONCE YOU'VE EATEN THEM SO VIDEO GAMES SHOULDN'T BE RESOLD EITHER.

VIDEO GAMES SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO REALLY FAST, LIKE HARLEY DAVIDSONS.

You're an idiot.

 

My point is that people should be able to sell video games just like they are be able to sell anything else. You buy a game and at some point you decide to sell it. Why the f*ck should a company that made the game receive any more money for that game? You already bought it from the company so they have your money for that particular game already. It's just greed based entirely on greed. They should have no right to receive anymore income from that game.

Your missing the f*cking point. This is what you people dont get. You dont own the f*cking game. Thats the difference, when you buy a car/bike, its YOURS. The game isnt yours, its still the companies. So no, you cannot f*cking sell what isnt yours.

[Adam Jensen]

 

Personally, it's like other forms of media - music or DVD of a movie. I fa person buys that disc they should have the right to sell it on.

They should have the right to do exactly what the seller says they have the right to do.

If THQ want to sell videogames that you can only play for 30 seconds, then they can do it, and no amount of you complaining that "you have the right to play it for more than 30 seconds" can stop them from doing it.

Of course, you probably wouldn't buy that videogame, but if they want to do it they can do it, and you don't have any intrinsic rights to resell-able video games.

 

 

It's a sh*t idea. I look at it this way. I bought a used Harley a couple of months ago and Harley Davidson Motorcycles didn't see a cent out of that. Why? Well, because I didn't buy a new bike from them! It works everywhere else, it should work with games. The problem is, there in no one greedier than video game developers.

Nice logic there.

Let's see what I can do with that:

PENS COST 2 DOLLARS SO VIDEO GAMES SHOULD COST 2 DOLLARS.

APPLES CAN'T BE RESOLD ONCE YOU'VE EATEN THEM SO VIDEO GAMES SHOULDN'T BE RESOLD EITHER.

VIDEO GAMES SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO REALLY FAST, LIKE HARLEY DAVIDSONS.

You're an idiot.

 

My point is that people should be able to sell video games just like they are be able to sell anything else. You buy a game and at some point you decide to sell it. Why the f*ck should a company that made the game receive any more money for that game? You already bought it from the company so they have your money for that particular game already. It's just greed based entirely on greed. They should have no right to receive anymore income from that game.

Your missing the f*cking point. This is what you people dont get. You dont own the f*cking game. Thats the difference, when you buy a car/bike, its YOURS. The game isnt yours, its still the companies. So no, you cannot f*cking sell what isnt yours.

Just because they tell you it isn't yours doesn't make it so. When I buy a game the game is mine. And I'll be damned if I let someone tell me that I can or can't sell it or crack it or do whatever the f*ck I want with it. It's a bullsh*t law made to protect greedy rich people and I ain't falling for it. I'd rather pirate every f*ckin' game than let someone tell me that I don't own what I buy.

[baptiste]

Personally, it's like other forms of media - music or DVD of a movie. I fa person buys that disc they should have the right to sell it on.

They should have the right to do exactly what the seller says they have the right to do.

If THQ want to sell videogames that you can only play for 30 seconds, then they can do it, and no amount of you complaining that "you have the right to play it for more than 30 seconds" can stop them from doing it.

Of course, you probably wouldn't buy that videogame, but if they want to do it they can do it, and you don't have any intrinsic rights to resell-able video games.

 

 

It's a sh*t idea. I look at it this way. I bought a used Harley a couple of months ago and Harley Davidson Motorcycles didn't see a cent out of that. Why? Well, because I didn't buy a new bike from them! It works everywhere else, it should work with games. The problem is, there in no one greedier than video game developers.

Nice logic there.

Let's see what I can do with that:

PENS COST 2 DOLLARS SO VIDEO GAMES SHOULD COST 2 DOLLARS.

APPLES CAN'T BE RESOLD ONCE YOU'VE EATEN THEM SO VIDEO GAMES SHOULDN'T BE RESOLD EITHER.

VIDEO GAMES SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO REALLY FAST, LIKE HARLEY DAVIDSONS.

You're an idiot.

 

My point is that people should be able to sell video games just like they are be able to sell anything else. You buy a game and at some point you decide to sell it. Why the f*ck should a company that made the game receive any more money for that game? You already bought it from the company so they have your money for that particular game already. It's just greed based entirely on greed. They should have no right to receive anymore income from that game.

Your missing the f*cking point. This is what you people dont get. You dont own the f*cking game. Thats the difference, when you buy a car/bike, its YOURS. The game isnt yours, its still the companies. So no, you cannot f*cking sell what isnt yours.

Just because they tell you it isn't yours doesn't make it so. When I buy a game the game is mine. And I'll be damned if I let someone tell me that I can or can't sell it or crack it or do whatever the f*ck I want with it. It's a bullsh*t law made to protect greedy rich people and I ain't falling for it. I'd rather pirate every f*ckin' game than let someone tell me that I don't own what I buy.

Exactly because of dipsh*ts like you that they are doing this.

 

You dont own the game, everything single game you have isnt yours, your just gotta deal with it. Hell, you'll HAVE to deal with it when most companies do something of the sort. Or stop playing video games and have a ride on your Harley, no big loss if either way.

 

You shouldnt have clicked through the TOS asshole.

[TokyoRoad.]

 

Personally, it's like other forms of media - music or DVD of a movie. I fa person buys that disc they should have the right to sell it on.

They should have the right to do exactly what the seller says they have the right to do.

If THQ want to sell videogames that you can only play for 30 seconds, then they can do it, and no amount of you complaining that "you have the right to play it for more than 30 seconds" can stop them from doing it.

Of course, you probably wouldn't buy that videogame, but if they want to do it they can do it, and you don't have any intrinsic rights to resell-able video games.

 

 

It's a sh*t idea. I look at it this way. I bought a used Harley a couple of months ago and Harley Davidson Motorcycles didn't see a cent out of that. Why? Well, because I didn't buy a new bike from them! It works everywhere else, it should work with games. The problem is, there in no one greedier than video game developers.

Nice logic there.

Let's see what I can do with that:

PENS COST 2 DOLLARS SO VIDEO GAMES SHOULD COST 2 DOLLARS.

APPLES CAN'T BE RESOLD ONCE YOU'VE EATEN THEM SO VIDEO GAMES SHOULDN'T BE RESOLD EITHER.

VIDEO GAMES SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO REALLY FAST, LIKE HARLEY DAVIDSONS.

You're an idiot.

 

My point is that people should be able to sell video games just like they are be able to sell anything else. You buy a game and at some point you decide to sell it. Why the f*ck should a company that made the game receive any more money for that game? You already bought it from the company so they have your money for that particular game already. It's just greed based entirely on greed. They should have no right to receive anymore income from that game.

Your missing the f*cking point. This is what you people dont get. You dont own the f*cking game. Thats the difference, when you buy a car/bike, its YOURS. The game isnt yours, its still the companies. So no, you cannot f*cking sell what isnt yours.

Just because they tell you it isn't yours doesn't make it so. When I buy a game the game is mine. And I'll be damned if I let someone tell me that I can or can't sell it or crack it or do whatever the f*ck I want with it. It's a bullsh*t law made to protect greedy rich people and I ain't falling for it. I'd rather pirate every f*ckin' game than let someone tell me that I don't own what I buy.

Exactly because of dipsh*ts like you that they are doing this.

 

You dont own the game, everything single game you have isnt yours, your just gotta deal with it. Hell, you'll HAVE to deal with it when most companies do something of the sort. Or stop playing video games and have a ride on your Harley, no big loss if either way.

 

You shouldnt have clicked through the TOS asshole.

As far as I am concerned, if you paid for a game and then after however long decided you no longer wanted it, what are you meant to do with it, just deal with it? You're getting highly strung over it, games have been sold on second hand for years now, around here there used to be even more shops than there currently are specialising in second hand games. I don't see the issue with it, I'd never sell on a game because I'm just not that fussed if I buy something that I end up not liking I'll just keep hold of it or give it to someone who may like it (suppose that is disallowed too?) and I have traded games for other games before which wouldn't that also fall under the things he doesn't like as technically they wouldn't have seen a penny from the trade from me.

 

Anyway its silly, with Steam other people could play my games if they had my log in details if I understand how it works correctly, they don't have to pay for that if I let them do that so how many potential sales are they missing out on there?

 

As for the TOS, who reads that BS? I buy a game to play it not to read through some sh*t, if you ask most people they will probably say they don't read through them, I don't cos frankly I don't care what they say, I want to install my game and get playing not read some generic terms of service.

[baptiste]

Personally, it's like other forms of media - music or DVD of a movie. I fa person buys that disc they should have the right to sell it on.

They should have the right to do exactly what the seller says they have the right to do.

If THQ want to sell videogames that you can only play for 30 seconds, then they can do it, and no amount of you complaining that "you have the right to play it for more than 30 seconds" can stop them from doing it.

Of course, you probably wouldn't buy that videogame, but if they want to do it they can do it, and you don't have any intrinsic rights to resell-able video games.

 

 

It's a sh*t idea. I look at it this way. I bought a used Harley a couple of months ago and Harley Davidson Motorcycles didn't see a cent out of that. Why? Well, because I didn't buy a new bike from them! It works everywhere else, it should work with games. The problem is, there in no one greedier than video game developers.

Nice logic there.

Let's see what I can do with that:

PENS COST 2 DOLLARS SO VIDEO GAMES SHOULD COST 2 DOLLARS.

APPLES CAN'T BE RESOLD ONCE YOU'VE EATEN THEM SO VIDEO GAMES SHOULDN'T BE RESOLD EITHER.

VIDEO GAMES SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO REALLY FAST, LIKE HARLEY DAVIDSONS.

You're an idiot.

 

My point is that people should be able to sell video games just like they are be able to sell anything else. You buy a game and at some point you decide to sell it. Why the f*ck should a company that made the game receive any more money for that game? You already bought it from the company so they have your money for that particular game already. It's just greed based entirely on greed. They should have no right to receive anymore income from that game.

Your missing the f*cking point. This is what you people dont get. You dont own the f*cking game. Thats the difference, when you buy a car/bike, its YOURS. The game isnt yours, its still the companies. So no, you cannot f*cking sell what isnt yours.

Just because they tell you it isn't yours doesn't make it so. When I buy a game the game is mine. And I'll be damned if I let someone tell me that I can or can't sell it or crack it or do whatever the f*ck I want with it. It's a bullsh*t law made to protect greedy rich people and I ain't falling for it. I'd rather pirate every f*ckin' game than let someone tell me that I don't own what I buy.

Exactly because of dipsh*ts like you that they are doing this.

 

You dont own the game, everything single game you have isnt yours, your just gotta deal with it. Hell, you'll HAVE to deal with it when most companies do something of the sort. Or stop playing video games and have a ride on your Harley, no big loss if either way.

 

You shouldnt have clicked through the TOS asshole.

As far as I am concerned, if you paid for a game and then after however long decided you no longer wanted it, what are you meant to do with it, just deal with it? You're getting highly strung over it, games have been sold on second hand for years now, around here there used to be even more shops than there currently are specialising in second hand games. I don't see the issue with it, I'd never sell on a game because I'm just not that fussed if I buy something that I end up not liking I'll just keep hold of it or give it to someone who may like it (suppose that is disallowed too?) and I have traded games for other games before which wouldn't that also fall under the things he doesn't like as technically they wouldn't have seen a penny from the trade from me.

 

Anyway its silly, with Steam other people could play my games if they had my log in details if I understand how it works correctly, they don't have to pay for that if I let them do that so how many potential sales are they missing out on there?

 

As for the TOS, who reads that BS? I buy a game to play it not to read through some sh*t, if you ask most people they will probably say they don't read through them, I don't cos frankly I don't care what they say, I want to install my game and get playing not read some generic terms of service.

Yes, you are supposed to deal with it actually. I'm not discussing weather its fair or not, its just the way it is. What he is saying is that the games that have been getting sold second hand all these years are essentially lost profit, something they want to fix.

 

As for the steam thing, I see what your saying, but sharing a steam account afaik isnt allowed by the Steam TOS. Even assuming it was, its not a problem as sharing a steam account is simply something that isnt done that much, so its not a big issue.

 

Of course no-one reads though the TOS, but when people go "THEY CANTZ DO THAT AHMAIGAWD MAI GAEM, I BOUGHT IT WITH ME MONIES". Well fact of the matter is they can do whatever the f*ck they want, and as far as the game goes, can make you do whatever the f*ck they want.

[tubbs51]

this is my favorite bit. "I'm a core gamer, I play games all the time, and I don't want to do it. I personally don't want to do it. I have to believe other core gamers do want to do that and I have to be convinced because I can't even convince myself. I want to kick back on my couch for hours immersed in that environment"

 

What f*cking environment? If he don't want to play video games all the time than why the f*ck does he bother?

He meant making a core game for Kinect...

[TokyoRoad.]

Personally, it's like other forms of media - music or DVD of a movie. I fa person buys that disc they should have the right to sell it on.

They should have the right to do exactly what the seller says they have the right to do.

If THQ want to sell videogames that you can only play for 30 seconds, then they can do it, and no amount of you complaining that "you have the right to play it for more than 30 seconds" can stop them from doing it.

Of course, you probably wouldn't buy that videogame, but if they want to do it they can do it, and you don't have any intrinsic rights to resell-able video games.

 

 

It's a sh*t idea. I look at it this way. I bought a used Harley a couple of months ago and Harley Davidson Motorcycles didn't see a cent out of that. Why? Well, because I didn't buy a new bike from them! It works everywhere else, it should work with games. The problem is, there in no one greedier than video game developers.

Nice logic there.

Let's see what I can do with that:

PENS COST 2 DOLLARS SO VIDEO GAMES SHOULD COST 2 DOLLARS.

APPLES CAN'T BE RESOLD ONCE YOU'VE EATEN THEM SO VIDEO GAMES SHOULDN'T BE RESOLD EITHER.

VIDEO GAMES SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO REALLY FAST, LIKE HARLEY DAVIDSONS.

You're an idiot.

 

My point is that people should be able to sell video games just like they are be able to sell anything else. You buy a game and at some point you decide to sell it. Why the f*ck should a company that made the game receive any more money for that game? You already bought it from the company so they have your money for that particular game already. It's just greed based entirely on greed. They should have no right to receive anymore income from that game.

Your missing the f*cking point. This is what you people dont get. You dont own the f*cking game. Thats the difference, when you buy a car/bike, its YOURS. The game isnt yours, its still the companies. So no, you cannot f*cking sell what isnt yours.

Just because they tell you it isn't yours doesn't make it so. When I buy a game the game is mine. And I'll be damned if I let someone tell me that I can or can't sell it or crack it or do whatever the f*ck I want with it. It's a bullsh*t law made to protect greedy rich people and I ain't falling for it. I'd rather pirate every f*ckin' game than let someone tell me that I don't own what I buy.

Exactly because of dipsh*ts like you that they are doing this.

 

You dont own the game, everything single game you have isnt yours, your just gotta deal with it. Hell, you'll HAVE to deal with it when most companies do something of the sort. Or stop playing video games and have a ride on your Harley, no big loss if either way.

 

You shouldnt have clicked through the TOS asshole.

As far as I am concerned, if you paid for a game and then after however long decided you no longer wanted it, what are you meant to do with it, just deal with it? You're getting highly strung over it, games have been sold on second hand for years now, around here there used to be even more shops than there currently are specialising in second hand games. I don't see the issue with it, I'd never sell on a game because I'm just not that fussed if I buy something that I end up not liking I'll just keep hold of it or give it to someone who may like it (suppose that is disallowed too?) and I have traded games for other games before which wouldn't that also fall under the things he doesn't like as technically they wouldn't have seen a penny from the trade from me.

 

Anyway its silly, with Steam other people could play my games if they had my log in details if I understand how it works correctly, they don't have to pay for that if I let them do that so how many potential sales are they missing out on there?

 

As for the TOS, who reads that BS? I buy a game to play it not to read through some sh*t, if you ask most people they will probably say they don't read through them, I don't cos frankly I don't care what they say, I want to install my game and get playing not read some generic terms of service.

Yes, you are supposed to deal with it actually. I'm not discussing weather its fair or not, its just the way it is. What he is saying is that the games that have been getting sold second hand all these years are essentially lost profit, something they want to fix.

 

As for the steam thing, I see what your saying, but sharing a steam account afaik isnt allowed by the Steam TOS. Even assuming it was, its not a problem as sharing a steam account is simply something that isnt done that much, so its not a big issue.

 

Of course no-one reads though the TOS, but when people go "THEY CANTZ DO THAT AHMAIGAWD MAI GAEM, I BOUGHT IT WITH ME MONIES". Well fact of the matter is they can do whatever the f*ck they want, and as far as the game goes, can make you do whatever the f*ck they want.

But what laws are you breaking by selling it on? I'd like to understand that bit more, where is the profit in a rental game where you can rent from wherever and just return it, surely they're seeing no sales from there and x amount rent and then never decide to buy. The same could be said that some people buy a secondhand game because they do not want to buy it at full retail because they're not sure, I know I usually wait for games I'm not sure on to appear in an offer. Over here you can sometimes get games on really good offers, not sure what profit they would make from these kinds of offers either, in some cases you're just paying for one game and sometimes come away with 3. I'm not sure how they could fix it, as long as you can buy games on discs then that "problem" will continue to exist.

 

Well, the TOS is easily ignored as previously said, Steam can't prove that you haven't been playing on all these computers, I wasn't sure if there is a 3 limit on Steam (FOV is the first time I've really used it) but the potential of lost profit is still there.

 

I get what you're saying but by the same token you can do what you want with the game when you've bought it, I've installed games on other computes and put no CDs on them for other people, this is seen as a loss of profit as the game was never paid for more than once. It's a fact of life I guess, and in the past when I have downloaded games I tend to go out and buy full retail versions wherever possible. That's not fair on them (the games developers) by putting it on someone elses computer without them paying for it, but hey they just have to deal with it, and for all this protection there is sometimes ways around it, or just waiting til it costs so little that its viable to buy.

[Andrew]

The TOS won't have a condition in that you cannot resell the game, as all the TOS does is what you can / can't do with the installed copy of the game. By using and playing the game you're agreeing to the TOS, but as soon as you stop playing / using the game then the TOS does not apply. So you are free to resell the game and all you are reselling is the install medium and any other stuff that came with the game. The new owner of the game will then agree to the TOS and license to play the game.

 

You've got to remember that the publisher is just a business man, who wants to make as much money as possible on his triple A title that he has just invested 20 - 30million for the studio to develop the game. He wants to see that money back plus extra. The studio would like to see extra money as well, as it means they can employ more staff and produce better games. For that they've got to sell a lot of units, what he is saying is that a few years ago they'd easily sell 2million units. Which would give the studio and the publisher more money, which would mean the publisher has more to invest in the studio who in turn can make better games.

 

The second hand market has grown a fair bit recently, in the UK you now have some big super markets who are dealing with second hand games, I think even HMV are dealing with second hand games now as well. Consumers who don't care about getting the game on release day, would tend to wait for the price to drop as it usually does after a few months and buy it retail. This would still be a sale for the studio/publisher. However with the second hand market they don't have to wait for it to price drop, as people who get it on release day, play it for a few days and then trade it in, result in the game being available much cheaper and far sooner.

 

So now they are only selling 1.2 to 1.3million units as opposed to 2million a few years ago, that's a drop of 700,000 units and less money for the studios to make better / more games, and that 700,000 second hand units are going straight to the retailer.

 

Making a game is expensive and risky to publishers, if they invest 30million and don't get it back, then they aren't going to be happy. So if the studio come out with a new game concept that sells an overall of 3million units, but only 1.5mil of those units are retail and that the publisher / studio see revenue from, and the other half of those are the same copies being resold, the publisher doesn't make the 30million back and has made a loss as a result they may decide that the concept type doesn't work and cease all work on it.

 

Whilst it annoys me that companies are doing this and making you pay extra for content, it is only way for them to continue to finance the games they produce.