Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Game Devs Using One-Time Bonuses to Fight Used Game Sales

Posted by Soulskill on from the thanks-so-much dept.

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.'"

20 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. Better than root kits by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Better than root kits by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. Incentives to encourage the desired behavior are much better than punishments based on the assumption that all of your customers are hostile.

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    2. Re:Better than root kits by retchdog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The chances are pretty high that by the time your computer crashes, the items will all be packaged into a bargain-priced Game of the Year edition or whatever, or even a free download. If not, you can probably get customer service to help you out once or twice if you have the serial #.

      For an mmorpg, your inventory is stored on a remote server anyway, so...

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    3. Re:Better than root kits by narcberry · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These incentives don't work.

      1. Good boys and girls get a bonus for being good.
      2. Bad boys and girls figure out how to also benefit from these bonuses.
      3. Devs panic and institute some ridiculous mechanism that typically only hinders the good boys and girls.

      Example:
      1. Everyone that purchases a new copy of a game at release will get a bonus 5 maps.
      2. These maps are quickly torrented and now everyone has them.
      3. Devs ban these 5 bonus maps from play with a game update. Only players that download and install a EULA-breaking crack will still be able to play these maps.

      --
      Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
    4. Re:Better than root kits by EvilRyry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ever pull the Atari/Vectrex/Nintendo out of the basement to relive some memories?

      Not to mention if the game happens to be for your XBox360 you could find yourself missing that first owner bonus sooner than you think!

    5. Re:Better than root kits by Anenome · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Problem with this is rooted in a basic economic error. The value of an item also, in part, is due to its resale value. The more publishers degrade the resale value the less the item is worth upfront. This is why attempts to outlaw used game sales, or demonize outlets that resale games don't have a leg to stand on. This method of devaluing only the resale value to the secondary market will still have an impact on the upfront price. Games will be worth less to buyers because of a move like this. Therefore, games will sell less than ever. Which will create a vicious cycle because publishers will likely conclude that they need to take even stricter measures against piracy, when the truth is they simply devalued their own product and would see more sales without the restrictions.

      --
      "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
    6. Re:Better than root kits by lysergic.acid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      what you're saying makes sense, but it's more complicated than that. i mean, resale value is a huge factor when it comes to cars, homes, and other large items that people frequently resale and also put a lot more thought into purchasing (and negotiating the purchase).

      with gaming, it's almost an inelastic demand. if you want a particular game, there's only one publisher. you can't substitute a competing product for it. and all mainstream game publishers pretty much have the same general anti-consumer attitude. so it's not the same as buying an Honda/Toyota instead of a Ford/GM because imports have much higher resale values than domestics. that kind of decision-making process doesn't factor into game purchases. there's also less of a market for used games, and this is due to cultural as well as legal factors.

      think about diamonds and engagement rings. the De Beers cartel has launched one of the most successful (and insidious) marketing/advertising campaigns in the history of consumerism. not only did they inject their product into our cultural institutions and traditions (diamond engagement rings are a relatively new phenomenon in the history of human marriage), but they have also gone as far as to manipulate our cultural values to suit their business model.

      the whole "a diamond is forever" commercial campaign was tied into a much larger marketing campaign aimed at stopping the resale of diamonds. De Beers works very hard to control the global supply of diamonds to create an artificial scarcity which drives prices up, but that would be undermined if the market were flooded with second-hand diamonds. so in order to combat this, they came up with the "a diamond is forever" slogan to discourage people from buying or selling "used" diamonds. so instead of mothers passing their diamonds down to their daughter, or to their son to give to his fiancée, men and women are encouraged to purchase brand new diamonds as a symbol of their "eternal" love for one another.

      the result of this marketing campaign is that used or second-hand diamonds have very low resale value. consumers don't want to buy used rings or jewelry. because of the lack of demand for them, De Beers is able to purchase up all of these second-hand diamonds, re-polish and re-set them, and then sell them as brand new diamonds at the artificially inflated prices. so in the end, this intentionally reduction of resale value add huge profits to the cartel's monopoly.

      with games, it's not quite so extreme, but there's still a socialized reluctance to purchase used games. i mean, everyone wants the latest and greatest gaming title. no one even wants to buy a 2-year-old unused game from the bargain bin. except for legacy systems and hardcore gamers, there's very little demand for refurbished games. it's just not even a notion gamers are accustomed to. most people aren't in the habit of shopping for used games the way that people shop for used cars. so in the end, the negative impact this one-time bonus policy might have on resale value won't really make much of an impact on market demand.

    7. Re:Better than root kits by KDR_11k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      2 is bullshit, the games are not priced according to the cost to make them but the price they're expected to fetch. It won't ever cost you more because if they think they can get away with a higher price they'd increase the price, new songs or not so the new songs don't matter at all. Also keep in mind that higher price does not equal higher profit, there's an optimum price where any increases end up decreasing profits because noone will buy the product and something like software has a fixed optimum price as the per-unit production costs are near zero.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    8. Re:Better than root kits by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Problem with this is rooted in a basic economic error. The value of an item also, in part, is due to its resale value. The more publishers degrade the resale value the less the item is worth upfront. This is why attempts to outlaw used game sales, or demonize outlets that resale games don't have a leg to stand on. This method of devaluing only the resale value to the secondary market will still have an impact on the upfront price. Games will be worth less to buyers because of a move like this. Therefore, games will sell less than ever. Which will create a vicious cycle because publishers will likely conclude that they need to take even stricter measures against piracy, when the truth is they simply devalued their own product and would see more sales without the restrictions.

      I've said before that EA's making a bad move in forcing their potential customers to look more carefully at what you are and aren't allowed to do with your purchase. Games are impulse purchases. Take away the impulse, and just like you're saying, they'll eat away at their own market. You'd think Nintendo's "it prints money!!11!" successes with the DS and the Wii would have hit that point home already.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    9. Re:Better than root kits by Nick+Ives · · Score: 4, Funny

      I disagree.

      I'm a tweaker and tend to re-install windows very often, especially when tweaking for a specific game.

      Maybe if you weren't taking so much meth then you'd remember you'd installed Windows properly the first time? Just a thought...

      --
      Nick
  2. Another such incentive... by azuredrake · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:Another such incentive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the right strategy for publishers to take - add value to incentivize purchase

      They are not adding value. They are removing value and then adding it back with restrictions designed to devalue the game on the used market.

      This in not the right strategy this is greed.

    2. Re:Another such incentive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As long as they don't start making the one time bonuses something important to the main game, like downloadable endings or downloadable entire second half of the game.

    3. Re:Another such incentive... by JPLemme · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By your logic, if a restaurant gives free appetizers to their best customers then they're "removing value" from the meals of all of their other customers. If a casino comps a high roller they're "removing value" from everyone else who visits the casino.

      Rewarding customers who give you money is a better system than punishing all customers regardless. Maybe if the used-game retailers want to share the money they make on used games with the publishers they can come to some sort of a deal so that used-game buyers get some bonus material, too. But not offering merchandise to people who aren't paying you for it is hardly "greed".

    4. Re:Another such incentive... by narcberry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What good are multiplayer maps that other players don't have access to? Isn't the point to play with others?

      --
      Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
    5. Re:Another such incentive... by BPPG · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree, the game industry is becoming more and more unaccomodating to the used and rental game retailers. I could totally see EA or similar releasing games that are effectively demos unless you had bought it brand new. How successful that would be is another story.

      --
      What's the value of information that you don't know?
    6. Re:Another such incentive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      By your logic, if a restaurant gives free appetizers to their best customers then they're "removing value" from the meals of all of their other customers.

      Food is not resold so its hardly the same.

      If a casino comps a high roller they're "removing value" from everyone else who visits the casino.

      Again, wagers in a casino are not resold.

      It would be more like Ford selling you a car that comes with free wheels as a bonus but prevented you from selling the car with those wheels.

      Maybe if the used-game retailers want to share the money they make on used games with the publishers they can come to some sort of a deal so that used-game buyers get some bonus material, too. But not offering merchandise to people who aren't paying you for it is hardly "greed".

      Thats not a very good idea. Next Ford will want a percentage of the sale price of a used car.

      Rewarding customers who give you money is a better system than punishing all customers regardless.

      Yes the second part is right but the first part is hardly relevant. The game has been paid for, they made a sale. Nobody is not paying for the game. If the games became cheaper as a result of this then it might make a difference. They just want more money. Its pure greed.

    7. Re:Another such incentive... by WDot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      15 years from now, when people are picking up the "classics" from this generation, they won't get the full experience that people today got because the game may not be being sold new.

      I like this analogy better: It's like you buy an album, and you get a free downloadable track that's a super awesome track. You got it because you bought the album new. Somehow, the RIAA comes up with a magic uncrackable un-analog-recordable DRM that means this bonus track never finds its way to torrent sites. Now 15 years later the original album goes out of print, but it's a bit of a "cult classic." People download the CD from torrent sites or iTunes and enjoy it, but nobody at the label ever bothered to put the "super awesome track" in the iTunes version of the album. Well sure, you have all the tracks from the OFFICIAL album tracklist, but that super awesome free track that everybody raved about 15 years ago is lost in time and space, unless somebody at the label decides to confer the priviledge of hearing that track again to you.

      Until all game distribution goes digital (and even when it does), I believe some of these little extra bits will get lost. Personally I'd prefer it if the game came with a really nice poster or plastic figure or something in the REGULAR version of the game. Not the $100 "Collector's Edition," I mean the $60 regular shmuck's copy. It's a nice incentive for customers who buy it new (who's going to sell it to a used game store along with the plastic figure?), and it doesn't take away from the game experience if you don't.

      If you look at the average anime rack in DVD stores, new releases are packed with toys and art books and soundtracks and all kinds of stuff to convince you to pay $30 for 4 25-minute episodes. That's the way to do it.

  3. EA as usual by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. If you've paid, is it legal to pirate? by telchine · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?