Slashdot Mirror
Game Devs Using One-Time Bonuses to Fight Used Game Sales
ShackNews reports on an emerging trend which sees game publishers offer one-time bonus codes to unlock extra content for certain titles. Rock Band 2, for example, comes with a code which will allow free 20-song download, but is only usable once. NBA Live '09 has functionality to update team rosters on a daily basis, but will only do so for the original owner. "'This information and data is very valuable and it wasn't free for us,' an EA representative explained on Operation Sports. 'T-Mobile is paying for it this year for all users who buy the game new. This is a very expensive tool to use, and if you don't buy it new, then you'll have to pay for this. It isn't greed at all.'"
This is not only aimed at the used game market, but pirates as well. Personally I'd rather see this approach than a root kit and a limited number of installations.
Is in the upcoming Gears of War 2 - there will be four maps available for download for multiplayer free on the day the game launches, but only if you buy it new.
This is the right strategy for publishers to take - add value to incentivize purchase, instead of making your brand new version worse than a used/stolen version.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
So consumers get jerked around when they rent a game from EA? That's been true for a long time, EA pretty much sucks when it comes to respecting the customer. Don't buy EA games, even under the Maxis title. If you do, then expect to be treated like a chump.
We are all just people.
An option to buy the extra content if you are a second-hand owner would be nice. They get the money, the buyer gets the content, everybody's happy.
Doing that would show an honest monetary interest in the extra content rather than a plain desire to kill the secondary market.
This is interesting. My first thought for this is that if I've purchased a game second hand, and by some defectivebydesign defect, I can't access the bonus content, I'll get a pirate copy of that content. Surely by buying something second hand, I've paid for the same rights as that bestowed on the previous owner, so would a judge back me?
I know the desire to promote the sales of their products but I get the feeling this sort of promo that applies only to the original purchaser of the game may run afoul of the First Sale doctrine of the US copyright law.
I personally like "physical" promo bonuses, such as a free copy of another (older) game...or a limited edition widget/whachamacallits, etc.
Or even a game poster.
This makes me think of textbooks that come with CD's and online help, so that it encourages people to buy the book new(for like $150), also international editions usually have the problem numbers messed up and is a slight pain for Americans who buy them. Its a money grabbing move, but its much much better than DRM or anything like that.
I am not sure how they came up with the conclusion that this not greed at all
Why do these companies consider me less of a customer? Why do corporations these days seem determined to lose as much business as possible?
I wonder if the idea of 100 people legally passing the game around after each person beats it keeps them from sleeping at night...
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Copyright holders have been trying to destroy the secondary market for decades. They've used various tactics, but if that is the goal this one is the most benign tactic I've seen.
Like I said, if a secondary market purchaser can buy the extras I'll be convinced this is not about destroying the secondary market. If not, I can see the slippery slope where eventually the game will be practically useless to the secondary market purchaser as most of the game is now for primary market buyers only. In the end you get a useless stub of a game, practically just a demo, when you buy, the rest unlocked only for the initial purchaser.
If it's tied to one console with DRM and you can't bring it to a friend's house, it takes away a lot of the fun of the game. It also takes away a lot of the value if I can't sell it used, if I don't like the game it's a lot harder for me to get rid of it because my friends would rather buy the one with the bonus content if they like it, and it's probably more of a ripoff for me if I take it to a used game store. I'd rather just have the content on the disc.
"Free market for me but not for thee".
Games these days are shite, EA know it, so they build a franchise like Rock Band and want to protect it by getting people to buy into the brand. I guarantee marketing has more to do with this than developers out to get little Jimmy Pirate. I fact, it's the marketers who are seeking out little Jimmy, he's the target of this. Now that EA have a successful platform, they can milk it with periodic updates like this for minimum cost, but still charge full price to Jimmy again. Jimmy's happy because he has a new game to play with, EA are happy because Jimmy is happy. We're happy because we're pissed that we bought into a crap company/franchise with our first copy e.g. Slashdot readers being who we are, being pissed off makes us happy too :)
Your analogy fails because it focuses on items which have no resale value. Any time the resale value of an item is reduced, its initial sale value is also reduced.
It is greed, and I say this not because it MUST be greed, but because it is stupid. Stupid coming from people who should know better is often indicative of greed.
Used buyers will remain completely unaffected. They are going to pay a fair market price for the used game without the bonus content.
New buyers will remain unaffected as well. They are going to pay a fair market price for the game with crippled "bonus" content.
Unless developers lower the price to reflect the reduced value, they are going to see fewer sales. Some number of people will not be willing to pay the same amount of money for reduced value.
So the end result? Fewer sales for the developer. More power to them.
The only way I can afford to buy a game is used or on clearance. I'm severely disabled so I cannot work (I wish I could) so I'm basically dirt poor. Try seeing how many new games you can buy making 6K a year, yes I said 6k. The people here saying buying used games is akin to stealing need to STFU and stop spewing nonsense. I think it's greed driving the developers. If this shit happens with all developers I'm screwed.
...and barring, by law, the resale of those extra things.
If it's sold to you, you should have the right to resell it. Not just the right to resell some of it.
It is kind of funny to me that with our tech prowess we have somehow figured out a way to create products that will be lost to the sands of time long before they become useless. I can still enjoy my 80's NES games. What about my Gears of War 2 "bonus" maps? Or my DRMed music tracks? Nope those will be gone in 10 years. This is not progression folks! In 500 years our ancestors will have quite a job cut out for them figuring out how we ticked, based solely on the greed of some companies. Art will be lost in a way that is inexcusable in our modern world. Fuck you greedy bastards.
The two examples given are totally different. NBA Live gives you essentially a free subscription-based service, which will create continued overheads for them into the future.
This is different from Rock Band 2, where the incentive could easily have been included with the game, or on a supplemental disc.
The idea behind NBA Live's incentive will work better too. To 'crack' those features would require regular work to update the rosters and release patches.
The idea of one time codes also raises the one-time-install issue. Will I be able to call in to the company and explain how I got the RROD and had to reinstall, and get an extra activation? If so, then expect the used game market to be full of people doing the same.
Since you are downloading the game for free, you already have a better version than the people who paid for it. You didn't pay any money, didn't have to wait for the CD/DVD to arrive in mail (or to the local store), and most importantly - you have no problems with DRM and your copy of the game will work 10 years from now.
It's an extra freebie given to those who buy the game in the primary market. It's incentive to buy on the primary market.
If they're sold separately to those in the secondary market pricing can be set to be an incentive. For example, $50 game with freebies included, $30 buy it used pay $20 for the freebies. You might as well buy it new, but it's the buyer's choice.
Incorect, its greed pure and simple.
Seriously, if Publishers want no used games sold in place of new ones, they could simply insist that they sell them only with distributors of new games. If they all did this, Gamestop / EB would have to make the choice to stop acting like crummy pawnshops.
Sooner or later it won't matter anyway, digital distribution and all. Frankly, as a customer, I'm tired of lame selection of new games on the shelf while the used shelves are full of overpriced resales.
This is the same garbage that textbook publishers have foisted on college students.
At first, it was a code that let you onto a website with homework help and hints.
Then, they made it really super easy for professors to give you homework via their site (which is only accessible via the one-time code, or $20-$40). By super easy, I mean it's the same problems as in the book, but the computer grades your answers. They then email a list of grades to your professor.
They'll surely do the same thing with video games - it'll be a bonus at first, but if this catches on, then in a few years, they'll make it so that the used game is worthless.
So game companies assume that those people that break the copy protection of original game are somehow unable to do so with the extra content?
If that extra content has any value its sure as hell going to be pirated as well.
So this gives nothing to game companies, but another step to legal gamers who now have to depend some download server to have all content, type in more codes etc, while pirates just keep downloading the game with extras from our Swedish friends.
you're not a windows user, are you?
I'm sorry -- justify it all you like. We all have bills to pay.
But to say this wasn't financially motivated is a baldfaced lie.
And to say it "isn't greed" is stupid, on top of that -- because the first time you say that, people will make the connection, and think "You know what? Those asshats really are greedy! I never thought of it that way before!"
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"It isn't greed at all."
Thou doth protest too much...........
This is stupid, as people have said, since it's just making the game less valuable due to diminished resale value. They could 'reward' early buyers simply by promising to never offer it at a reduced price to retailers, aka the Nintendo strategy. People buy 1st party Nintendo games early because they know that they will stick the big name games at the full standard MSRP *forEVER*. It's the publishers dropping the prices too quickly to try to sell more copies that get people to wait and/or buy used.
Actually, I think you're out 5 bucks and 20 hours of otherwise productive time this week :)
I didn't know it's on Steam... what's the deal, one time fee of $5? If that's the case, I'll sign up for an account. By my calculations, that's like a good 100 hours or so of very enjoyable gaming for a fiver!
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
Everyone's getting all worked up over "free tank of gas with every purchase".
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Completely off-topic, but do lecturers are reputable universities in the USA really set problems from their textbooks, rather than writing their own? Since the publisher will sell the answers cheaply and they are pretty easy to pirate, this seems particularly stupid (as well as lazy). Or are they unassessed, in which case does it really matter if they're different?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This is illegal in most countries just like EA's EULA. But since the average customer cannot afford the hassle to take a lawyer for such issues, they get away with it.
So instead of your car being secretly bugged by the manufacturer, the glove compartment simply wont open once you sell?
I agree, this will prevent car thieves from getting paid as much.
She made the willows dance
Yeah, and nobody buys my tissue after I've used them. Or that mars bar I ate. There's a reason for that: they are one-use items. Like your tickets or holiday.
And what if you DON'T get entertainment from your game purchase? Oh, NOW it's not about "the entertainment, full stop".
Your game has no degradation to time or use. Except scratches (which wouldn't be a problem if you were allowed to make a backup copy). It is eternal. Selling it on is like selling on your house or car (which if you were not allowed to would be criminal) with the even more glaring truth that unlike your house or car which are somewhat damaged goods, the game is not.
So please get your head out of your arse. This may require EA take their cock out of it first, but ask nicely and they may do it.
Honestly, this really just seems like an extension of micro-transaction systems we're already seeing cropping up in the industry. While it might be an immediate annoyance to some, it would not surprise me if much of this exclusive content is eventually made available to anyone who wants it six months down the road.
In the meanwhile, there are other options publishers could pursue if they wanted to limit the resale of new titles. One in particular is to have the publisher themselves offer to buy the game back from the consumer in exchange for a discount on a future purchase. The publisher could then re-package and sell the game again to another user at a slightly lower cost. This could help cut back on over-production while allowing the publisher to profit from the same copy of a game multiple times.
Also, this kind of approach would probably make consumers more comfortable when we eventually do make the transition to digital-only distribution of major game titles over the next few years. At least this way, the user isn't left shelling out $50-$60 on a title knowing that once they buy it, the external value will have been lost. (Buyer's remorse is much worse once you know you can never go back.)
8==8 Bones 8==8
This is just a test case to see if people will accept it, before they require this one-time code to be entered and then lock the game to that specific console.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
NWN was awesome. I'd recommend you get one of the re-releases of it though. The original campaign was poo, the second expansion, Shadows of Undrentide(sp?) was OK whilst Hordes of the Underdark was awesome, a massive dungeon crawl through the Underdark!
Most of the joy from NWN came from the user mods though. The Penultima series of mods are the only ones that immediately spring to mind; they were full of Pratchett style humour, which I loved.
Nick
I have no problem with a company trying to maximize its profits. Disclosure: I'm a game developer, so I have an obvious interest in my company actually earning profits from customers.
This is the kind of crap dreamed up by moneymen and management, not by game developers. Game developers dream of making it big by creating an awesome game that everyone wants to own and play. Management looks at an existing market and asks "what sort of tactics could we employ to squeeze more revenue of our existing customer base?" It seems reasonable to them, but it's ultimately a short-sighted approach.
EA executives, here's a word of advice for you. If you want to increase sales, follow this simple set of rules:
1) Focus on creating fantastic games. That's your business. Treat your own developers with respect. Allow them some room to innovate and create some cool stuff for you.
2) Treat your customers with respect. Get rid of invasive DRM tactics that treat your valuable customers like criminals. Look to companies like StarDock as a model for how to win not just customers, but fans.
3) ???*
4) Profit!
* EA Execs: The missing step is just a joke, originally based on an episode of South Park involving underpants gnomes - don't ask. It represents a "magic step" in a business plan that transforms an otherwise failed business strategy into success and profits. In your case, the "magic step" is probably something like "Stop being greedy and evil", so we'll just leave it at ???, m'kay?
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Two years ago, my computer wouldn't run any of the latest games. Now I have a new computer, and there are a few games from two years ago which I'd still like to play, so I head to the store in hopes of finding these now-obsolete titles being sold at a discount.
But no, it's not to be. Instead, there's the "Game of the year edition", containing the same game in a bigger box, for the same amount of money. Or the "Gold edition." Or the "Platinum Edition." Or the super-mega-multipack edition, with every low-cost add-on which came out after the game (which to be fair, at least includes some extra content).
How about selling two-year-old games for $20? Or is that too radical?
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
I really wouldn't mind games being locked into one owner with zero resale. The problem is the industry pricing isn't built that way right now. You shouldn't be able to lock me in as the only owner of a 8-10 hour game with a $60 price point, or I simply won't buy. That's rental territory and should be around $10-$15. On the other hand, games like Gears of War 2 I'd probably be willing to pay $60 and have $0 resale value, because it's that awesome and has awesome replay/online play longevity (and should have free map packs too).
Bottom line, the games industry needs to either lock customers into 1 game per person and lower, variable price points; or sell resellable games at their inflated $60 price point. They can't have their cake and eat it too, or people just won't buy.
I think I need to rain on your parade a little. =)
Judging by what I've read about StarDock (e.g. http://draginol.joeuser.com/article/303512/Piracy_PC_Gaming ,) they aren't doing what they do to "take the high road" or to win a fanbase that will get them buzz, they're doing it to maximize the dollars they earn.
As I understand it, this means deliberately ignoring "game developer dreams" and choosing to make games that can be done on the cheap and will be bought the most.
As I see it, StarDock isn't against copy protection measures in general, they are against them when they do not make good business sense (i.e. when the number of sales lost due to piracy is small, and and the few of those sales that copy protection techniques would recover would not be enough to make it worthwhile).
In other words, StarDock isn't against copy protection on principle, they are against taking a stance against piracy on principle when it would lead to bad business decisions.
My assumption is that StarDock's corner of the game business doesn't have enough second-hand sales for them to bother adding bonus content for the reason suggested in the story.
There's another reason for game developers to make some of the game content "bonus" DLC: It lets them kick the remainder of the game out the door complete with flowery promotions about the bonus content in the marketing materials and on the back of the box, to start the cash train from customers a-rollin', without having to have the bonus content finished for months.
Take Rock Band 2; from the official FAQ:
"[Q:] When will the Bonus Tracks be ready?
[A:] While no official release date has been announced, we expect the 20 bonus songs to ready [sic] for download before the end of 2008."
In the case of the Rock Band 2 bonus content, I'm skeptical that the bonus code will be limited to one use, because nothing in the marketing describes it as a special offer or as being limited in any way, and doesn't the US FTC sort of frown on time- or use-limited offers that aren't described clearly as such?
As a game devver, I can tell you that the real reason for this kind of a move is aimed at making new games more attractive for buyers than resold ones.
Consider a place like gamestop. When you walk into there, where are all the new games? WAY WAY back on the top of the back shelf, and up front is the bargain bin, old games, used games. Game developers make no money from purchase of a used game (there are no royalties or anything like that for used games [as it should be, IMO]).
Places like Gamestop make all their money by buying up used games cheap and selling them for way more than the cost they bought them for.
A used game is usually (marginally) cheaper than a new one. This steers your average gamer into the bargain bin vs a new game, but this one-time content would be an incentive to get a new game for some bonus stuff.
I hope this is only used to offer BONUS content as a reward for buying new, and not reduce functionality. E.g. none of this: 1) You can't play this game because it was already 'activated' by someone 2) You get this crappy version of the game because it was used -Dom
It isn't greed but... you've already been paid once for the game... supporting a second hand user (not simultaneous) shouldn't cost you more...
As someone who nearly exclusively buys used (or bargain bin new if we're talking PC games) this isn't exactly all that new.
1. "Collector's editions" have been endemic for years, and in my experience, you're damn lucky if any of that stuff makes it back to the store when someone trades it in (I've been damn lucky before, SMT Nocturne original with the soundtrack, well before it got reprinted, but that's the only time). I had to dig and dig for even a NEW copy of Metal Gear Acid 2 that hadn't had all of its extra stuff lifted by the employees.
2. Extra stuff, with codes in inserts for downloadable content is par for the course. I assume that's how most of these work, and instead of broadcast coupon codes like they used to be, they're one-time use codes like a mini-gift certificate. There's no other sensible way to do it. If you get it cheap (that one copy of whatever that just hangs around on the store shelf until it's $20) or the person who owned it before you doesn't bother to even look at the manual or inserts (happens quite often, though if they're good the store employees will snatch them when it gets sold back, got to be lucky) you're golden. Even so, the entire time I've played games, I've never found ONE of these things that ended up being awesome enough that I just had to have it no matter what, or wasn't eventually released in the "greatest hits" version later if it was.
The germ of this argument is: distribution on media = right of first sale; distribution via servers = license bound by right of company to say it is non-transferable: if the company puts a restriction on the car washes: that you cannot transfer this "bonus" to another person.
The fix is the same as for Cell-phones: legislate it to be portable or stop whining. Give it the same protections as cell phone numbers, portability required.
As I see it, StarDock isn't against copy protection measures in general, they are against them when they do not make good business sense (i.e. when the number of sales lost due to piracy is small, and and the few of those sales that copy protection techniques would recover would not be enough to make it worthwhile).
In other words, StarDock isn't against copy protection on principle, they are against taking a stance against piracy on principle when it would lead to bad business decisions.
As a die-hard capitalist, that doesn't rain on my parade at all. Stardock's CEO has stated that copy protection doesn't lead to increased sales, and that's ultimately his job. He understands the benefit of customer service. You can equivocate about how ultimately it's self-serving, but does the customer really care about that? I truly believe that the best sort of commerce is mutually beneficial, where both parties are happy with the exchange and are willing to do business again at a future date. To me, that's what Stardock represents. As to the point of creating "fans", my point was that if you create great games and treat your customers well, then you'll create loyal customers (or "fans"), who are willing to spend money to ensure you keep creating more games they enjoy.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.