Batman : Arkham City

[tokyochojin]

I remember when '2nd hand games' were called '2nd hand games', is "preowned" a gamestation thing?

Anyway, it's pretty ridiculous what they are trying to do, and there is no wonder gamers are being turned off by this generation's capitalist greed.

[Brad]

I'm not going to single-handedly bring down rocksteady. Not everyone thinks the same way I do. To me Arkham City has less worth now because of this code thing. Same situation for resistance 3. I WOULD have bought both of those games, brand new, at full price, at launch from my indie if they had no redemption code.

Boris makes an excellent point and one that really got me thinking about my attitude. I can see that games really are like no other entertainment product. Yes, I have paid full price for music many years after it was made. There was no code in the box to download extra tracks either.

I realise that developers and publishers feel that they need to do something. I just don't like the current somethings. I'll continue this over in the 'don't sell your own game thread'.

[chopemon]

A code really puts you off that much?

Really?

Really?

[Brad]

Yes. Really. I've had a bad experience whereby drm stopped me from playing any of my digital purchases on a new psp I had. That changed my view entirely on things.

Digital copies of anything be it online codes, pre order bonus codes or even entire games devalue a product on my opinion and therefore I won't pay as much for it. I even buy pc games on disc unless they are on some kind of mega sale digitally. I'll happily pay more for them on a disc too. Even years after release. I'm not saying everyone should think the way I do but when the day comes that you can't play something you've paid for because of drm or something is no longer available to download it might make people think before just accepting whatever policy a publisher decides is now the norm.

[Spatial]

For me the issue is more that the industry is so massively out of step on this issue.

They're still getting their knickers in a twist about the second hand market, gnashing their teeth about revenue lost blah blah, yet they don't seem to see to even acknowledge the massive price drops that are happening to games withing a month from release.

When you can, just by being a bit patient, pick up a brand new copy of a game, complete with any codes and content etc, for just a few quid more (or in some cases a few quid less) than what someone is trying to charge second hand, it makes your whole `locking out customers who buy second hand` totally redundant.

Of course I'm not advocating against price drops, it's never been a greater time to pick up some bargains, but it's more an illustration of how backwards the games industry's priorities can still be.

Unless it's all a ploy to kill off the second hand market and then bump the prices up in some massive Machiavellian plot.

[Dogg Thang]

It's possible one is tied into the other. A month from release, the amount of 2nd hand copies going in and out of retailers must be huge. There could be plenty of copies being sold yet not a penny going to the publishers or devs. At the same time, retailers have new copies still on shelves that won't shift. Prices go down.

If devs and publishers can limit content in 2nd hand product, new games may well hold their value longer.

[Neon Ignition]

I'm not going to lie, I'll still buy this but admittedly the concept of unlock codes for single player content is 100% inarguably wrong

[Guts]

So, Catwoman code comes with every new copy of the game? Whew. Was worried there for a second... Nerd rage fit avoided.

[sj33]

You just have to hope that you don't feel like playing the game in a few years time, attempt to unlock the content again online only to find that support for the game has been dropped

[Dogg Thang]

That is the danger with all online content.

[sj33]

Oh of course. I do think it's a little bit different when segments of the single player game are at risk though, however insignificant.

[Fader209]

A crappy new trend where people get paid for the work they do?

I don't have a problem with people selling second hand copies to each other on a forum like this or whatever but the retail pre owned market got way past a joke and now devs have to do everything we can to stop it. Games cost such a ridiculous amount of money to make, we have to work against the bastards that sell pre owned in places like Game and Gamestation. There is nothing money grabbing about this, we have to get paid for our work and there are entire retail chains that operate by trying to deny us this.

Don't be ridiculous, downloadable content is not destroying the industry. It makes a few people on forums get their knickers in a bunch (honestly, complaining about having to type in a code is the definition of first world problem) but to say that it does more damage than pre owned game selling in retailers is nonsense. Money spent on games is down at the moment and when more and more games are costing close to ?100m to make because we all demand bigger and better, we have to find ways to make our money back.

The traditional games industry is in trouble right now (4 redundancies in 8 years for me) and retailers have been working for years to screw us out of as much money as possible.

If you buy it new it doesn't cause you any problems or inconvenience. If you buy it second hand you can choose not to buy the online pass but if you do, we at least get to see some money from it. You want bigger and better all the time, it comes at a cost.

If you say you'll wait until it is in a sale just to make sure publishers make less, I hope you're also not complaining about fewer innovative big budget titles and the rise of easy money social and casual games.

Wake up.

People always get paid for the work they do. A great game will always sell well so game makers should be focussing more on making a game outstanding rather than churn out a mediocre one.

DLC is another way of getting as much money as possible out of the customer after that initial purchase. I have NEVER bought the add-on DLC for a game as I despise the fact that it wasn't put on the disc to start with - that goes for extra missions, characters, skins etc I remember the days when that sort of thing was given out for free upon completion of a game but people seem to think now that it's fine to be charged for it.

On another note, these games are retailed at ?40 for a standard version but half the time we are given unfinished titles and made to put up with glitches which are later patched. Shouldn't this sort of thing be sorted out in beta releases? Never mind, it doesn't matter as long as I get my downloadable clown skin as a pre-order bonus.

I'm not that fussed with the actual process of inputting a code it's more the principle that is being set here and as a long term gamer I don't like the direction this is heading in. Some of us can't afford a new game at full price every time so the pre-owned market is the ideal place to turn to when you have waited a year for a game, why should I get punished for that?
We sell our cars on when we want a new one but Ford or whoever doesn't then demand a cut of money for the engine to start for the new owner.

And wake up? You are working within the games industry and I do feel for you with the current problems but maybe you should understand that the people buying the games are the ones supporting a majority of it.

[Matt]

I don't mind "online pass" for online games, figure it's only fair - if the publisher provides dedicated servers for me to use (think EA and Bad Company 2, a fine example imo).

Other than that, I pretty much hate the idea of DLC in whatever form it appears. If it was free, I'd have no issues. Or if the buy-in of the original title was low, I'd have no issues.

As for the pre-owned market, I know some here will jump on me, but EVERYTHING is tied to price, and I'm always at a loss how people think ?40 for a game is an ok pricepoint. If games retailed at a tenner, you'd have a load less trade-in happening because you reach a trade-in value where it's just not worth it; plus at a tenner, people can afford to buy the latest game, not have to cannibalise
their last title to afford it.

"But games cost soooo much to make" is a stupid argument. Films cost more, and I only pay ?6 or whatever to go to the cinema. Or ?15 to buy a $200m film brand new on BluRay. Yes, they have repeat markets, and a longer shelf life. But has anyone stopped to consider of the knock on effects of ?10 new games? Remember that game that came out 6 months back, you didn't get it but thought it would be fun to check it out at some time. You go into Game and see it on the shelf for a tenner, so you pick it up - but wait, it's second hand! Because the retailers don't stock anything beyond a month or 2 after release. It's a ridiculous business model, and just because a status quo now exists doesn't mean there isn't a better business model to consider. No, increasing retail prices is not a good alternative.

Oh well, never going to happen. True gaming mass market will remain elusive, the industry and consumers reach a homogeneous equilibrium with nothing but yearly CoD and FIFA updates

[sj33]

It should be noted that, whilst I am all for second hand, it's not second hand in itself that's the problem - it's launch period second hand, where retailers will place second hand copies of new releases right next to new copies. Given the launch period is the most important period for a release, it's these that are perceived as the problem.

This is all part of tit-for-tat bickering between publishers and retailers and customers are being made to bear the brunt. Retailers need to come to some kind of compromise, or else risk becoming irrelevent as publishers continue to look for way to get them out of the equation.

[eastyy]

always thought borderlands dlc was dlc done right ...well after the game was released and they took fan feedback on board and by the time of claptrap revolution was released really did improve the game

thats a good reason i have not sold the game