Smackdown vs. Raw 2011's one-time code for online play might upset pre-owned buyers - but THQ 'doesn't care'.

That's according to the publisher's creative director for wrestling games Cory Ledesma, who told CVG that "loyal fans" who are interested in buying the game first-hand are more important:

"I don't think we really care whether used game buyers are upset because new game buyers get everything. So if used game buyers are upset they don't get the online feature set I don't really have much sympathy for them."

"That's a little blunt but we hope it doesn't disappoint people. We hope people understand that when the game's bought used we get cheated," he continued.

"I don't think anyone wants that so in order for us to make strong, high-quality WWE games we need loyal fans that are interested in purchasing the game. We want to award those fans with additional content."

The one-time code attached to Smackdown vs. Raw 2011 also gives free access to the game's first DLC pack, which includes Chris Masters as a playable character.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/ar ... ?id=261330

...

Books? DVDs? Homes?

Wouldn't the world just be great if people continually bought stuff new?

For normal games, yes, for on-line, I think it is more of a case-by-case basis.

If the on-line game is free for the original owner, then it should be free for subsequent owners, as long as the original owner stops playing...

On the other hand, if there are additional one-time costs involved in setting up accounts, for which they put a premium on the price, I would say it is fair to charge second hand buyers...

I'm not sure I entirely agree tbh. The difference with a lot of games now is there is an ongoing commitment, at least for a couple of years, by the maker to keep supplying online gaming resources - lobbies, servers etc. The cost of that service for the lifetime of the game is rolled into the cost of the game at sale.

Now if somebody buys it second hand, the company doesn't get that fee again. All the money goes to the retailer and the taxman. So essentially someone who buys a second hand game is using those online features without having paid for them. Now there is an equal argument that the original purchaser paid the fee for the use of those services for the lifespan of the game online when they bought the game and when selling the game on they sold on the use of the online facilities for the remainder of that, I'm just not sure which side of that argument I'm actually on. Some sort of actual legal precedant needs to be made as to whether 'right to use online resources' is something which is implicitly transferred when a game is resold.

What would solve the problem instantly is if the shops - who make massively more profit off second hand games than new ones let's not forget - passed on some kind of small pro rata payment to the publishers to stop every one complaining. Of course, the shops are never going to do that, are they?

I've always said the developers/publishers need to talk to the games outlets, but then my thought was 'eBay, independents...'.

Frankly, they haven't a hope of seeing anything meaningful from this, and they'll just p1ss off people with a genuine interest who were never gonna pay full price anyway. These days, missing out on just one game from a series could see you never coming back or buying the competition...

They'll just have to wait and hope they can rip people off with downloads in the future

If the game is transferred to someone else why shouldn't the rights be transferred as well?

If all the costs are rolled up in to the cost of the game, they may have a point, but if the games are not transferrable then customers need to be made aware of that at the time of purchase. If the online content requires a paid account even if it is only $5 a year then the new owner should be able to access that content as long as they are willing to pay that $5 per year.

I agree there's an argument for that, but generally speaking these things are are not transferrable in that way in law. The 'right' in this case is a contract between two parties and you can't change the your part of the deal (by transferring it to someone else) without the consent of the other half. It's something that definitely needs to be clarified.


This is what EA are doing with their '$10' project. Basically put, the game is playable in single player regardless but some of the online functions are keyed to a 'one use' code shipped in the box. If you buy one of these games second hand, you have to pay $10 to get another code. Mostly so far this has been about downloadable items rather than actually being able to play online but I can see it being applied that way in the future. Now they're perfectly within their rights to do this but I believe someone sued a retailer in the US because they didn't make it clear when the second hand purchase was made that the code in the box had already been used.

I am not interested in online games so it will not impact me. Though if the single player version is impacted as well then the second hand value of these games will plummet and since many gamers sell games to buy the latest it will be a short victory for the industry. With lower or zero second hand values gamers will be much more selective about the games that they buy. There will be far fewer impulse purchases and games reviews will be even more important.

The whole point of the scheme is to kill the second hand market. The second hand sales market does essentially nothing for the games industry. Publishers, developers, artists, coders... none of them see a single penny from the second hand games market. The only people who make money from it are the shops and the taxman. That's it.

The industry as a rule doesn't care about 'impulse purchases' of second hand games, they don't make a cent off them. What they care about is their belief that a proportion of the people who buy second hand would buy new at full price if that was the only option available to them.Therefore they don't actually care at all if 70% of the people who now buy second hand games would buy no games at all, that's no loss to them at all. They weren't seeing that money anyway. The 30% who now go out and buy new games that previously would have bought second hand, that's extra profit in their pocket (note figures are entirely arbitrary for illustration). If one single person buys a game new because the games industry completely killed off the second hand market, the games industry will be better off. They don't care about whether their games sell second hand and they never have.

The games shops are actually contributing to this by charging so much for second hand games through greed. The only reason 'project $10' stands any chance of success is that the games shops are idiotic enough to charge almost full price for second hand games. The reason it's called that is that in the US second hand games are usually only $10 less than new ones in the shops. It certainly wouldn't work if they had to call it 'project $50'. By doing this the shops have given the industry a lever point to beat the second hand market with.

I am one who may not buy a game at full price as I think that they are over priced, at £15 I am interested. The second hand market puts money in the hands of those willing to buy games at full price. I would buy new if they were cheaper. If they do not care about the second hand market why have one time only features? They clearly think that they should get some of this revenue as well. What about second hand books and records, or even art? Most if not all of these games require a disc to actually play so those that have sold lose their ability to play.

They will not be better off by killing the second-hand market if those first time buyers cut back because of the loss of second hand funds to fund that purchase.

Fair enough, as long as you realise that the games industry therefore has absolutely no interest in you. As far as they're concerned, you're a zero sum. They do nothing for you because you do nothing for them.


Pitifully little if the price the likes of Game pay to people on trade in is typical. Again, the games retailers are contributing to their own downfall. While they massively profiteer on second hand sales - by paying so little and charging so much on the resell transaction - that gives the industry more and more wiggle room to try to kill the second hand trade without feeling a backlash.


And therefore the games industry would make less money off you and therefore they would care about you less. It's a simple point : the amount the games industry cares about you is proportional to the amount of money they make off you. That's pretty much common to all capitalist industries in fact.


Of course they do. But they don't 'care' about the second hand market any more than you care about wasps. They want it to go away. They will use any mechanism they can get away with to make it go away. That includes offering incentives to people to not buy second hand games but to buy new ones instead.


Those aren't games. They don't care.


The problem is the people who buy new games don't like those 'must have the disk in' copy protection systems, so they reuce the sales of new games, which is contrary to the industries interests. The markets are actually moving away from using those systems to forms of online distribution and verification, which totally disallow reselling.


The industry really wants to go to digital distribution of the likes of Xbox Live, PSN and Steam. Once they do that, the second hand market will fail and the games retailers will go with them. Then the customer will have no choice but to buy new. The industry will then keep the actually pretty large chunk of the profit that the games retailers have always kept of new games sales. Game make more money for sticking a game on a shelf then handing it you than EA do for making it. The behaviour of the industry suggests the notion that new games are bought only if people can sell old games is not one that makes them money.

Take you as a typical example. You say you will buy a game if it costs you 20 quid. But does that mean 20 quid including trades, or if the sticker price is 20 quid? If the sticker is 20 quid and you trade in two games for a fiver each thus paying a tenner, do you think the games makers actually make very much money off that transaction? They probably make about a fiver. Game will keep a fiver of the tenner you paid them then sell each of those two games you gave them for 20 quid each, probably at 75% profit. So games industry take - five pounds. Retail industry profit - 35 pounds. That games may have cost £10million to make. Do you really think at that rate there'll be a games industry around for very long to make games at all?

The games industry looks at it this way - one person giving us a tenner is better than 9 people giving us a pound. It's that simple.

I was using them as examples of how other industries have lived with the problems for decades/


I actually accept it as a form of copy protection. I live with it, it can be a pain but at least I have a genuine copy.


I can see the issue with retailers, but if they have their own distribution system then I could quite easily buy from them. If I pay £20 directly they get more money. I will pay full price for a game that I know that I like and will play a lot. I bought Starcraft 2 new from Amazon for £33, and Civilisation 4 again full price. Though I do play them a lot and will play them for years. Well Starcraft 3 will be 2020 so I will definitely get my monies worth. If console games offered me that then yes I could pay full price. The issue is that are many games really worth the price asked? I am not a big enough gamer to answer that question.

If people can't sell games on second hand, they won't be prepared to pay as much for them in the first place. End of.

I buy some full price games as must haves e.g. GT5. On the otherhand if I'm willing to wait a month or two I can pick up almost new releases for a lot less than preowned. For example I've bought Final Fantasy and Bayonetta recently for under £18 each new.

I'm not saying I wouldnt buy preowned but I generally dont see the point.

Exactly.

That is a good point. I cannot believe the industry think that killing the secondhand games market will suddenly produce a horde of new customers willing to pay top dollar.

What it will likely do is increase the number of illegal downloads.