Slashdot Mirror
Xbox 720 Might Reject Used Games
silentbrad writes "Online passes are a recent staple in staving off used sales. Limiting what used buyers can access is a protective measure for publishers, much to the chagrin of parts of the gaming community. Chris Kohler of Wired argues that the death of used games is inevitable, and passes are the first step toward something exactly like a native anti-used game something integrated into consoles. He notes, of course, that digital is the future of buying games, but in the meantime we may be looking at 'an interim period in which the disc as a delivery method is still around but ... becomes more like a PC game, which are sold with one-time-use keys that grant one owner a license to play the game on his machine.' Also at Kotaku, the source for the Wired article (which is the source for the IGN article)."
If the secondary market becomes impossible, piracy will spring up to take its place, if anything else to increase availability of hard to find titles.
crazy dynamite monkey
In related news, Gamers might reject the Xbox 720
Is it just me, or do you hate it when people say "Is it just me..."?
So in the future, lets say... 18 years from now, you won't be able to legally play that game that came out in 2013 because there are no more keys left and the servers are down. You might still have the console, and the disk, and perhaps you paid money for it, but with that game, with that anti-used-game protection, it's useless. And of course, going around the copy protection would be the only way to play it again, which is illegal.
Where is in modern times, you can play an 18 year old game without breaking any laws. Buy a Sega Genesis or a Saturn, buy the game, and so long as it isn't scratched up you can have a nostalgiagasm.
It stinks, won't stop anybody, and make criminals out of everybody, eventually. This idea is worthless.
Personally, the online keys were the last straw for me.
The fact that used games were available at half price was the reason I was playing in the first place. I trade the first 6-12 months of a game's release for the discount. I wouldn't pay $60 to cram into Modern Warfare on release day with everyone else anyway.
This is the miscalculation the game companies are making - they won't be able to force us into playing $60 and up for games we'd previously bought used for $30, we just won't play the games at all.
They are also missing the point that the presence of a used market drives sales, because you aren't so skittish about blowing $60 on a game if you know you can recoup some of that later.
This is a bad idea. I know that suits and PHB's think "Well, they can't get used games anymore - they'll buy the full priced ones instead!" but they've got another thing coming.
KIlling the used game market is going to backfire because the sale of used games subsidizes the purchase of new games. A lot of people make the calculation that they can buy a ~$50 game, play it until they are tired of it and then sell it for ~$20 - making the effective price only $30.
If the publishers make it impossible to resell that game, that amounts to nearly a doubling of the price for a new game and thus a lot less people will be able to afford it. These game publishers should be care what they wish for.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Game companies don't care that you won't pay $30 for the used game anymore. Remember, THEY don't get that $30. They get NONE of it. To them, this is perfectly fine.
I'm not saying that they should be doing this, I'm just saying they did think it through.
What you're missing is that, without a used market for buyers of new games to recoup some of the cost of their unwanted games with, they simply won't buy as many new games.
How can these corporate dunces not understand that the used game market is what fuels new game sales ?
On the few occasions where I've sold a game, in my case it's because I didn't like it, and wanted to free up those funds to buy something else. My most recent example was last year's Splinter Cell game (which I dubbed "Gears of Splinter Cell"). I spent $60 on it, didn't like it, sold it to someone else for $45 or so. Then I turned around and spent another $70 on Black Ops. So far, the game industry has made $130.
If I were unable to sell the game, due to arbitrary restrictions enforced by the platform, the other guy would not have gotten his hands on my unloved Splinter Cell, and I would have had $45 less to spend on my next game. Restricting that private sale then directly results in one less retail sale.
Now, I only rarely sell games. I'm more of a collector, and I like to revisit old games every few years. I can afford it, so I'm not the typical used-game-market kind of guy. A lot of my friends are, though, and they rarely have more than 4-5 games in their possession at any given time. They beat one, sell/trade it, get a new one. That's the key factor: they keep buying new ones with the money from used sales!
The people who are buying used games ? They're not even on the radar. $70 for a video game is fucking expensive, considering most modern titles are hastily-polished turds. About half gamer guys I know in the 25-35 age range are broke asses, working retail jobs and having less than $200 left after rent and necessities. The used market is the only way they can afford any games, so they may not contribute directly to the game industry's bottom line, but it keeps them addicted. How often have I heard these guys go "Man when I get a 2nd job I am so buying a PS3"... but kill off the used game market and these folks will find other hobbies, and you lose them as a customer for life!
-Billco, Fnarg.com
The same can be said about used cars, PCs, electronics, almost any physical object, so what? The way I see it, the industry wants to have it both ways:
When piracy is concerned, the industry says "a copy of a game is a product, pirating it is pretty much like stealing a DVD (or a car)". OK, so I guess my copy of the game is just another physical object and I should treat it like that (after all, I do not copy a lot of physical objects).
So, selling a used physical object is perfectly fine - I can sell (or buy) a used car, a tape deck, a PC and many other things. I have bought a lot of used equipment, mostly because I cannot afford new one or it is no longer made. So, if a copy of the game should be treated as a physical object, then it should be perfectly fine for me to sell it or give it away, assuming, of course, that I did not keep a "backup". Except that the industry really does not like it and takes steps to prevent it and make it so when I buy a game, I'm stuck with it forever. When I buy a TV and it turns out I do not like it I can return it (within 14 days) or sell it at a lower price - taking a loss, but still recouping some of the money paid.
You don't hear Intel bitching about all those used PCs sold to people. Or Mercedes bitching about used cars. Or just old cars, the way Microsoft is bitching about the fact that people still use Windows XP and *gasp* do not want to pay them money for a slightly better OS.