News THQ: No sympathy for second hand game buyers

You can't compare things like cars or processor manufacturing to the software market. They create and sell their products in completely different ways and what you buy is completely different. In the case of cars and processors you're buying a physical product; when you buy software you're paying for a license to use the software rather than for the actual disk. The disk and information on it is of little commercial value, after all it's just one of thousands or millions of identical copies, it's the license which has the value.

 

And? If i sell my licence on how is that different from me selling my old CPU?

 

I......must..................resist..................

 

I certainly do not mean to imply that the second hand market is stealing, but will say that it hurts a dev's income which can be a bad thing. Obviously there are second hand sales all over in the world for other products, and there are no laws against it, so it's certainly not stealing. But there are plenty of cases where a person would buy a game first hand at full price, but chooses to go second hand because it's cheaper and has no downside other than an open box. Cases like that are lost money for the developer, and it happens even with good games. They want the money they could potentially be making and they are going for it. There is no real reason for them not to because, as I can't stress enough, gaming is a luxury market and THQ doesn't owe us anything.

Now, there can be downsides to buying second hand imposed by the developer. KayinBlack mentions the option for new games to come with features unique to first copies. Such incentives can certainly help first hand sales and is a much more positive method for detering second hand sale. In the same light, people such as myself don't care about gimmicky addons (I'm looking at you, soundtracks) for my games and those things have no value to me. No method is perfect.

Funny you should mention piracy, though! In some respects, piracy and second hand have similar effects on a developer's income. You've got me on the point of something from nothing being untrue if they're paying! Yet consider how much money a developer makes from a second hand sale: $0. And how much from a pirated copy: $0. In such a respect, second hand sales are just as bad as piracy. There are plenty of factors to consider in addition and this is an incomplete analysis, but the cut and dry is that a gamer with a desire to own and play the game is not contributing to the developer.


Personally, I just find it strange that so many people get so upset about a fee for second hand sales when half of us are going to buy our games on Steam anyway, and none of us play THQ fighting games.

 

No seriously go for it, I do love to hear how people who are against piracy because it deprives content creators of income have no problem with people doing the exactly same thing by purchasing second hand.

 

It was meant as a joke, and I think we have gone over that issue enough in the other thread. Obviously, the joke fell flat

 

hmm, perhaps I should have used some smilies in my post also

 

Yes you should

 

Yes. Your point being? A license is just a sort of asset. When you acquire it you are legally entitled to use software, when you sell it, you transfer that asset and forego the privileges it grants you in return for financial gain. You do not create a new license or enable someone to use the software without one, therefore you are not harming the dev/pubs in any way.

 

Of course not, I mean what possible harm could come from multitudes of people using someone's work without paying any recompense in a fairly short period after the work is made available? How awful of them to be even the slightliest bit bothered about the sales they're losing out on from people who won't go out and buy it from them but will wait a couple of months so they can pick it up cheap from a second hand sale.

 

Ahh sod it, I couldn't resist, my ma always said I never knew when to walk away, here's to you ma

Krazeh, you are talking as if NO income has been generated from that unit. The dev has had his income from that unit, on the initial sale. The most he would ever make from the sale of that one unit is one unit price. Exactly the same as if I went out and bought a toaster and sold it tomorrow, or any other commercial product.

What are you saying, that second hand sales should be banned? Or that the dev should have some renumeration for the second hand sale?

 

This reply somewhat addresses your other posts, but I'm too lazy to multiquote them (the name isn't just for looks).

This is speaking from EA's perspective for Project Ten Dollar: A game containing multiplayer content will require extra work and effort on EA's part. The concept of work for money seems pretty important to you. When one player purchases a game at full retail price, the cost is expected to be enough to cover the content of the game. EA can also provide multiplayer support with such profit being provided, one might say this is a gift. When the copy is sold second hand, however, EA sees no money. They're still putting in the work to provide multiplayer content for the new owner, but that owner has not paid EA a single dime! So Project Ten Dollar was added implemented. The singleplayer content, which was only worked on once and only paid for once, is ready to play for the new owner. Good to go. However, the continued support and work put into the game which the new owner has the potential to gain access to, requires an addition $10 to EA.

On a side note, you rationalize the cost of second hand games as being balanced out by the work being put in by the middleman. If I sell a game to a friend for the same price as a second hand retailer, how is that rationalized? I didn't buy the game off of anyone, stock it and advertise it. I just hand it to him and take my money.

 

If developers are missing out due to second hand sales they should consider their business model. Everyone bemoaned how the PC industry was in decline and how piracy would completely kill our hobby.

Along comes Steam and offer a new, exciting and creative service - which is a tremendous success.

Developers should consider how they can offer extra value for first time customers; and apply some creative thinking about how their games are distributed.

In the meantime however it is best not to insult legitimate buyers of your product. They are not pirates, they are people who have spent hard earned money on your product, it is not their fault that economics determine you do not get a cut of second hand sales.

Perhaps if you had released a great game it would inspire brand loyalty from those second hand customers, who would buy your next game first hand?

If is is hard to feel sympathy for second hand buyers, then it is harder to feel sympathy for developers of crappy console wrestling games.

 

Read back over your post, Jimmy! Steam is again the answer. You can't sell Steam games, ergo there is no second hand market to worry about. Notice that EA only implemented second hand fees on their sports games. Their console sports games meant for casual gamers. THQ is now doing this to their similar sports games. You don't see THQ doing it to DoW II do you? That's not often considered a crappy game (except for GFWL) yet it has no second hand potential at all! The bleeding edge PC gaming scene is largely digital now so they don't have to worry about it.

 

Multiplayer support is a feature users pay for when they purchase the game. Any publisher/dev takes the cost of after sales support including maintaining multiplayer servers into consideration when the price the game, and they will judge whether they will make a return. It is most certainly not 'a gift'.

Yes, and the multiplayer experience is part of the content of the game.

If I buy a game and I choose to play it all day every day for the next 3 years - it's within my rights to do so (and indeed some do). What then is the difference to the dev whether it is me playing or someone else (provided we are not playing the game at the same time - unless specifically licensed to do so)

The dev sees no money because they have already been paid for that particular copy(license) by the original buyer. In effect, they no longer own that particular license - it is not theirs to make money on.

The dev has been paid to provide the game content and any associated services which can be reasonably expected (after-sales support, multiplayer services advertised on the box) for 1 licensee, usually for an indefinite time period. Who that licensee is, and whether that person changes or not bears no relevance to the pub/dev's contractual obligation to provide such services for a reasonable time period.

EG: if you pay me to wash dishes, it makes no difference to me whether those dishes are yours or someone else's.

You miss my point, I was explaining why the retailers get a cut from second hand sales while pubs/devs don't.
In the case of person to person sales the issue is even simpler: the person owns the license and is entitled to sell it at whatever price he wants. If you don't like it, buy it somewhere else.

eg. My phone costs about £500 new. I've had it for about 5 months. I wouldn't part with it for any less than £500 atm, because it is still worth that to me. Therefore, you might be better off going somewhere else.

 

+1 rep on this, I simply couldn't face the typing involved to say the same things (which would not have been as clear as you put it).

It is late here after all...

 

Autodesk would like to disagree with you on that one. They claim that you are not allowed to sell the software to anyone. No more second hand copies, only $999 new sales

Of course, none of us who actually use software like AutoCad, 3DS Max, Maya or other Autodesk software in a professional setting are very happy about this, and those who'd otherwise learn to use these applications on a second hand copy now are basically forced to get a 'liberated' copy. So much for goodwill and customer relations, I guess

 

I love these arguments. :>

Just so ya know, I echo eddtox's comments so far, and he's basicly repeated himself at least 2 times now since certain individuals are either ignoring his posts content or not reading them thoroughly.

It's called a chain: Dev -> publisher -> first consumer -> shop -> 2nd hand sale.
See dev and publisher only appear once in this sequence of the single unit sale?

 

I wonder if all the staff at THQ drive around in brand new cars?

So people are worried developers get laid off when there game does not make enough money. Therefore Second hand games are evil. So how many people are likely to get laid off from a studio? 250. What about all the staff in Game stores and your independent video game stores that are disappearing. What about all the game rental stores. There are a lot more people who will lose out on an income if the second-hand market disappeared.

Have people forgotten about the Rental Industry? With DLC codes being shipped with new games. How does the game rental industry work? I mean rental companies have to pay a higher price for games because they are for rental. But if you don’t get the full game, consumers will no longer rent?

I also find it funny regarding those that have commented saying that people who buy second hand don’t care about publishers and developers. I guess your implying that those who buy new do? I buy around 90% of my games new, and I couldn’t care less about the publisher or developer or about how much money they get.

All I care is that I got a game I won’t for a price I’m willing to pay which is around £20 or £30 if its special.

 

Oh THQ, you cards. If you'd like, some of us "Second Hand" buyers can just go ahead and not pay for the games at all. You know, since you care enough about the people who can't afford full retail as so to insult them.