Game developer: Pre-owned games are worse than piracy

By on May 12, 2010, 1:49 PM
There's no denying that second-hand games dig into the profits of developers, but just how bad is it? Citing statistics that suggest games are traded as many as four times, Blitz Games Studios' co-founder Andrew Oliver says used game sales cut publisher and developer royalties by as much as 25%. That figure, while far from scientific, is staggering.

In fact, Oliver believes the impact of second-hand sales is a "much bigger problem than piracy on the main consoles." He acknowledges the appeal of such transactions however, saying that games are expensive and after a few weeks of playing, players have either beaten the title or grown bored of it, so trading it in to help pay for another seems sensible.

Oliver believes the damage caused by the pre-owned business is pushing game companies toward digital releases be it the full game or extra content. This comment comes as EA prepares to block second-hand games from online access unless new owners pay $10 for an "Online Pass." That paywall will exist in forthcoming EA Sports titles and if successful, will presumably spread to other genres.




User Comments: 70

Got something to say? Post a comment
dustin_ds3000 dustin_ds3000, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

i can see it now. "Steam is coming to a PS3/XBOX360/Wii near you, Summer 2010."

yukka, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Okay. Funny story - I agree that preowned games in their current state damage sales for full price games and obviously reduce the money received by the game developers. This is bad.

But.. I also find that £39.99 for a console game at release is too much money for a single game. How can kids afford to buy more than 3 games a year at these prices? I am an adult and when I look at my stack of £39.99 games that I do not want to play, it hurts me to think of the value lost. The hundreds of pounds I no longer use.

Then what do I do? Well, I take them to the shop and trade them in to purchase new games as alot of kids obviously do as well otherwise they wouldn't be able to afford new releases.

I think the EA idea is a good one. 10 dollars to buy an online pass if you get the game preowned seems fair enough to me. Its either that or find a way of taxing shops that do preowns so the prices go up a bit for secondhand games but the publishers get a cut of the sales.

Either that or a sales cut combined with an enforced ban.. but how would it be enforced and would reducing the cost of each game to £29.99 still amount to a loss of 25% of profits?

gobbybobby said:

I also think EAs idea of charging pre owned users to play online is a good idea. However if you have say 4 Children in your house. All paying £30-40 a month for Xbox live then u have the 1 user activation code. U would end up have to pay $10 (£10?) for 3 of the gamertage to be able to play online. And I for one hated it when my brother shared my gamertag so don't argue that!

MW2 RRP was £55! thats too steep. I think £35 maybe as much as £40 for a AAA title. anything above that unless its a limited version or comes with loads of goodies is a rip off! I hate buying games pre owned. Always have hated it. I never trade in or buy games from trade in shops/ websites.

PanicX PanicX, TechSpot Ambassador, said:

For as much bitching and moaning these companies do over piracy and their lost millions of profit, they sure do everything they can to increase the lure of it.

Guest said:

This is the worst story yet. Businesses are digging their hands into areas that are in no way, affiliated with their business. Buying pre-owned games is synonymous to piracy, except it comes with a small payment. Behind that cruel truth, Piracy is synonymous to sharing a video game software, that you legally owned, with your friends--so you can play a game together on a LAN Weekend.

Back in the Nintendo/Super Nintendo days we use to lend our copies to friends everywhere. Did the business world grow corrupt in this last few centuries?

From the way I see it, companies want to create a rule that you can never share your video games with friends or family. It feels like paying the president taxes and have it thrown into the furnace. Ever paid for something and was told that you do not own the product?

TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Hmmm... I've never bought into the "games are too expensive" argument. Simple reason is look at the time vs. expense. Take for example Fallout 3. When released, that game was $59 for X-Box and $49 for PC. But if you played every aspect of the game - looked under every rock, peeked in every house, shot every critter, completed every mini-quest, it took a minimum of 130 hours to finish the game if you raced through it.

Most folks took150-170 hours to finish it off (my "score" was 153 hours). That comes out to around .25-.30 cents for every hour of play. Now not every game is going to take that amount of time to finish. But the point being, computer games are an incredible entertainment value, and a consumer needs to look beyond just the purchase price.

As far as pre-owned games, I'm a PC gamer only, so have never really got into that. It's more a console phenomenon. It does make sense that the developer and publisher should get some sort of royalty for the sale of a pre-owned game, but how to do that effectively and consistently is a mystery. Be interesting to see how this EA program pans out.

Guest said:

If it was any company but EA I'd give them applause for thinking outside the box. But it is EA. The granddaddy of greed and corruption. They had better offer a number of goodies in exchange for the $10 online pass.

Although this doesn't effect me since I don't buy their stuff anymore anyways. My $0.02

Guest said:

I think this is where companies get into trouble. Instead of wondering why the first user brings the game back they want to make sure the second user doesn't buy the used game. Most likely they are aware most games are just crap but they want to bleed as much money out of them as they can. Used games are the same as piracy, it can't be assumed that every copy is a lost sale. Maybe the reason people are buying used games is they can't afford to buy new games. Also the people selling the games are most likely doing this so they can buy the next new game.

Think about it this way if I buy a $60 game. First game I ever buy. Now I want a new game buy don't have $60 more dollars. Currently I can take the game back get some credit maybe around $30 so the new game ends up being 30 instead. Well with the EA thing I am pretty sure the only party that will get screwed will be the customer. When you return your EA game you will only be getting $20 dollars instead of $30 and all the other parties still make there money. If I buy one game a month and return them and get 30 for all of them over a year I will be spending 60*12-30*11(first month didn't have a game to return)=330. Well if gamestop just decides to only give me back 20 dollars and I still want to spend 330 a year on games this means I have to buy less games. Which me buying less games sounds like a big win for game devs. Assuming gamestop does give back only 20 dollars the new equation to spend 330 on games is 60*8-20*7=340. Which means instead of buying 12 new games a year I would only be buying 8 new games a year.

I am 100% sure whichever game dev made the comments doesn't take this like this into consideration. They just think the customer has an unlimited amount of money to spend on there sub par products. I could go on longer about this in business strategies but I just feel that all of these reports never look at any of the bad things that can come about from forcing people to only buy new games.

PanicX PanicX, TechSpot Ambassador, said:

TomSEA said:

It does make sense that the developer and publisher should get some sort of royalty for the sale of a pre-owned game, but how to do that effectively and consistently is a mystery. Be interesting to see how this EA program pans out.

yukka said:

Then what do I do? Well, I take them to the shop and trade them in to purchase new games as alot of kids obviously do as well otherwise they wouldn't be able to afford new releases.

This is how they profit off of pre-owned sales. When gamers sell their old games, its not a huge leap in logic that they will use the cash to buy other games. Games that they otherwise might not be able to afford.

Adding additional fees to pre-owned games, cuts out a market of gamers that simply can't afford the over inflated release prices. yukka won't be buying as many new titles because he can't offset the cost anymore.

Would you suppose that someone that really wants to play a game, but can't afford to pay for it, might get a cracked version for free instead? I think that's the case and why this is bad for the concern about piracy FUD.

Relic Relic, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I somewhat agree that second hand sales hurt more then piracy since a real sale went to someone else then the developer, but the solutions that are being forced onto consumers is the wrong direction. Second hand sales are important not only in this regard but other industries as well in the world (Books, CDs, Movies, Cars, Clothes, etc). And instead of complaining about it target the problem directly which is overpriced games. Games being released at $60 a pop is simply too much for 90% of what is out there. Not all games are created equal, but the price sure is equal no matter the quality. This reason alone leads some to buy used or resell their game when it turns out to be a bust.

I remember when DLC was being promoted as a new way to lower game prices as revenue would be made up with it. And instead we now get $60 games with DLC that runs $10 - $15 dollars on top of that. The greed of publishers is the main culprit here and the solution is as simple as releasing games from $30 - $40 with 2-3 DLC packages in the waiting. And maybe not develop games with Hollywood like budgets and expect us gamers to foot the tab. Then again my views sadly are in the minority...but I'll still be fighting the good fight for you guys!

Guest said:

Unbelievable the game industry is following the textbook industry.

I don't see what the big deal is for online content. If you sold 2 million copies and all users us the online features, then one user sells the game and the buyer then gets online it is 2 million users.

For most titles a $10 fee would simple lower to cost at which once would buy a preowned game and the price a seller would get for it.

Relic Relic, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

@ Guest

You're right, it's easier for them to blame EVERYONE else but themselves. Blame piracy, blame second hand sales, blame poor understanding of the game, etc instead of realizing that maybe that buggy game with poor game play and support was the cause of its poor performance. I can only think of one developer/publisher at the moment that blamed themselves on a bust instead of making excuses like most of the industry and excepted returns to those who requested it.

Guest said:

@TomSEA why does it make sense the developer and publisher should get some sort of royalty for the sale of a pre-owned game. I can't think of any other market that works this way. Does ford go to your local used car dealer and ask for 17% of the sale of the used car. CDs is maybe a better example since it is also a digital copy of something yet you don't see the artist getting a cut of used CD sales. If I buy something I own it that is how the US works and if I choose to sale it I should be able to.

I guess I just don't understand that I am not suppose to own anything I buy in today's world and I am really just renting everything.

Staff
Matthew Matthew, TechSpot Staff, said:

Mind sharing who you feel that one developer/publisher is, Relic?

Guest said:

whats next, are they gonna start giving out about us buying games at discounted prices. shame on us all.

Relic Relic, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Matthew said:

Mind sharing who you feel that one developer/publisher is, Relic?

It's Stardock, their failure of Demigod on launch resulted in ~2000 returns for full refunds and they ate the cost (Stardock Customer Report 2009). While that is a PC title it does show that some companies do care. They also established the Gamers Bill of Rights, 10 rights I think every game should be held up too.

Guest said:

I guess I just don't understand that I am not suppose to own anything I buy in today's world and I am really just renting everything.

What's this ownership you speak of? I thought we live in a world of leases and loans.

natefalk natefalk said:

I do not see what they are complaining about. They received the money (and profit) from the initial sale. Put it this way, if you buy a brand new car and decided you don't want to drive it anymore. Would you sell it or let it collect dust in the garage?

Bottom line: When you purchase an asset, you are the owner of said asset and you can do whatever you want with it (unless it's digital...then you can only delete it).

I suspect the next gen of consoles will be like the PSPGo. (No UMD/DVD/Bluray only digital content)

jwdR1 said:

TomSEA said:

Hmmm... I've never bought into the "games are too expensive" argument. Simple reason is look at the time vs. expense. Take for example Fallout 3.

Trouble is, for every Fallout 3 there's 10 Red Faction: Guerilla's. While I got hours of entertainment out of F3 like you, I got nothing but frustration with RF. At the time of purchase it's a complete gamble as to which you will get for your $60...and the odds aren't in the consumers favor. Considering the quality at release of most games, $60 is too much.

IMO, this is their own doing. The initial price point is too high. I'm not willing and can't afford to pay $60 for a game. I wait until the price comes down to $40 if the game is good and well reviewed, I wait for $20 otherwise. The trouble is, they keep the new game price at the $60 price point for a year or more. By that time there are plenty of copies available in the used market at a price I'm willing to pay. Guess where I'm going to make my purchase.

If they want to compete with the used game market, then they need to start dropping their prices around the time copies start becoming available in the used market. If they stayed within $5 of the used price, I for one would be more likely to buy the new.

If Ford wants to make money off my purchase of a used Ford truck, then they can offer a service contract for a reasonable price (i.e. EA's approach). But CarMax, owes Ford nothing...and neither do I. If I really want a new vehicle, I can save a money by showing up at the beginning of the year to buy last years discounted model.

Darkshadoe Darkshadoe said:

Lets see...

You buy Game X at full price. You wear out your copy of Game X so you have 3 options:

1) Buy a completely new game of Game X for $60

2) Buy a used version of Game X for ~$30 plus pay EA a $10 code fee

3) Download and burn a copy of Game X for less than $10 (time and materials)

EA..Which choice do you really think people are gonna choose?

TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

For Guest: Royalty payments are common practice in nearly every industry. Television shows (even old re-runs of Gilligan's Island have to pay royalties), movies, music (radio stations have to pay royalties on the songs they play - usually packaged in a deal with the distributor), etc. Royalties are paid for artwork hanging in a museum. You can even say cars have royalty payments of a sort in that their components break down over time and need to be replaced. Some of the items - such as transmissions, drive-lines, electrical components have to be purchased from the original manufacturer. You never buy a car, drive it away and then never have to invest in it again.

For jwdR1 - that's what reviews and demos are for (although admittedly demos are becoming fewer and far between). Anyone who goes out and pays top dollar for a game without waiting for reviews is just asking to get burned. I did recently with Silent Hunter V. Silent Hunter III & IV were terrific games and I presumed V would be as good or better. I pre-paid for it at top dollar and it's the biggest dog I've played in 20 years. Lesson learned. I won't be doing that again. There's a reason we have Metacritic around: http://www.metacritic.com/games/pc/

Guest said:

@TomSEA Royalties are common practice in industries that don't sell to the end customer. If you buy a TV show on dvd and go to sell it you don't have to pay a royalty. Games are sold to the end customer so your example really makes zero sense. Now if say games where sold to xbl and xbl had a system setup to where you paid a monthly rate to play any games you want than yes it would make sense to have a royalty system but that isn't how it is setup. CDs, books, art don't have royalties when you buy them.

Timonius Timonius said:

Let's ban used book stores and libraries while we're at it.

TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

"CDs, books, art don't have royalties when you buy them."

Agreed. But they do have EULA's prohibiting the resale of those items. So if people are going to violate that EULA and applicable copyright laws by re-selling, then there should be a royalty fee for the creator/distributor.

Darkshadoe Darkshadoe said:

"You can even say cars have royalty payments of a sort in that their components break down over time and need to be replaced. Some of the items - such as transmissions, drive-lines, electrical components have to be purchased from the original manufacturer. You never buy a car, drive it away and then never have to invest in it again."

Sorry Tom..bad example.

When you buy parts, you don't have to get them from the original manufacturer nor do you have to send money back to Chevy or Ford. You can also get parts from a junkyard..oh wait..those are second hand parts...should Ford or Chevy have an employee at Bob's Junk Yard to collect money?

"CDs, books, art don't have royalties when you buy them.

Agreed. But they do have EULA's prohibiting the resale of those items. So if people are going to violate that EULA and applicable copyright laws by re-selling, then there should be a royalty fee for the creator/distributor. "

Well I haven't bought a CD in 15 years so I'll take your word on that. Books and Art is resold all the time and has no EULA. You can't take those their intellectual ideas and make them your own because that would be plagiarism, but you can certainly resell books and art without paying a royalty. It happens everyday in used books stores and art galleries.

Guest said:

yeah screw these companies...if they don't wanna be pirated or be undercut by used games then CUT YOUR PRICES...be fair to the gamers out there b/c gaming is an ever-booming industry...making me pay $400-500 for a freaking console/accessories then want me to go spend $60 bucks per game?? wtf is this world coming to

Relic Relic, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Games with royalty payments on second hand sales is a rather preposterous idea even for you Tom. I have to say you are always off the chart when it comes to anything copyright.

TomSEA said:

"CDs, books, art don't have royalties when you buy them."

Agreed. But they do have EULA's prohibiting the resale of those items. So if people are going to violate that EULA and applicable copyright laws by re-selling, then there should be a royalty fee for the creator/distributor.

Um, no. EULA does not supersede laws nor is it a law. EULA's in several cases are still a rather large gray area and have been struck down depending on the case multiple times in court. See Vernor v. Autodesk for a great example, one that has been ruled in our favor (being appealed) saying that in this case the software was sold and not licensed. Their is no doubt in my mind that the US Supreme Court will be hearing cases related to digital ownership and privacy in the upcoming years as these issues need to be addressed.

matrix86 matrix86 said:

So how much longer before we have law enforcement driving around town looking for yard/garage sales and fining people for selling used games, movies, and CD's?

Games? Haven't bought a new game since 2 years after the PS2 was released. I always bought them from friends, pawn shops, craigslist, yard/garage sales. Every game I own came from somewhere other then the "New" shelf at the store.

Although, I do rent most of them first.

Movies? Library. I'm always in the top ten to check out a movie when it comes out on DVD. I keep check on the libraries site and as soon as the movie slides into their database, I put it on hold and wait 2 months for it finally come out. Best of all, it's free and I get the movie for a full week (beats the rental store). And there's also second hand stores (like Goodwill and Salvation Army).

Music? Once again, the library. I check out a CD, listen to it, then go to my blackberry and pull up Pandora and listen to the artist and others like that artist. If there are certain songs I REALLY want, I go to Amazon and download only the songs I like for $0.99. And if I happen to find a CD at a garage sale or second hand store, I buy it there.

So i'd say I get most of my entertainment at garage sales, second hand stores, the library, and friends. So the chances that i'll never be able to get second hand stuff are VERY slim. And let's not forget the free software out there to remove the copyright which allows you to rip to your computer. It's very easy to get a movie from the library and burn it to your own blank DVD. I'm sorry, but piracy and second hand selling are never going to go away. Good luck with that.

CMH, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I'd pay US$200 for every new game that I buy..... provided that I end up liking it, and have the option of returning it for a full refund, no questions asked, if I hate it.

Would probably work out cheaper for me too this way, with the number of absolutely crappy titles out there selling for US$60 or more.

Also, I think some of the arguments here have been taken out of context. They are charging $10 for extra online content, which would have been free if you bought the original game new. Or at least this is what I perceive they are trying to do.

This isn't exactly the best scenario for us, but its much better than $10 for just being able to install the game, which is the vibe I'm getting from the discussions above.

Guest said:

The gaming industry is going the way of the dodo - much like the music industry.

There is quantity but definately a lack of quality.

If developers provide quality products people will buy.

There are far too many titles that are released half baked.

MW 2 is a fine example. Why should I pay full price for a quarter of a game ?

There are other fine titles that provide decent single player / mutliplayer and has some kind of technical advancement. The price is also far more reasonable.

Current gen consoles are getting long in the tooth anyway so devs should roll up their sleeves and start doing some real work for PC owners. :-P

Guest said:

This just in. The Car industry is upset that people are selling used cars. To quote an industry executive "if used cars could not be sold everyone would need to buy new cars, this has caused us to lose $50 billion dollars".

isamuelson isamuelson said:

Ah, keep selling those used games, Gamestop. Anything to hopefully get developers back to the PC.

You get what you pay for!

RealXboxMaster said:

I 100% agree. I my self dont buy NEW games @ all. 9 out of 10 times most of the games come out are total crap. Why spend $65+ on a new title that you can either wait for it to come down in price or buy a used one from somebody that traded it in. This trading of games has been going on since the late end of 80's. It has been 21yrs pass and now they say that the used game business is hurting thier sales??.. Come on lets get real. All day doing is bitching because they can't or stop the piracy of thier titles on the Internet. So this is why we are starting to see the move on DLC. I have owned so many console and barley bought a NEW game, I always bought used and traded in to buy something else. Just take a look @ the used car business...same concept.

IamBD said:

This is going to hurt Gamefly bigtime. Luckily I'm a PC gamer and and dont really have to worry about it...yet. I see the industry going the way of software in charging a yearly license or something of that nature. Probably wont happen too soo, but I think it will happen eventually.

Guest said:

exactly! ... i can understand there concerns but people are trying to find ways to get it cheaper not get the shaft and pay some sort of license fee's etc.

Guest said:

This might come as a shock to gamers.....but what makes you so entitled to......gaming. I've been gaming since the early 80's and it's a HOBBY. Gaming isn't food, gaming isn't shelter or clothing either. The companies are allowed to price items at whatever price they want so long as people are willing to purchase it. Obviously people are since they've held these prices so high for so long, so who's really to blame. Take any game that doesn't sell well from the start....give it a month or two and it'll drop in price $10-$20. So er...just wait to purchase. If everyone did it...the prices would come down. It's people's sense of entitlement, impatience, and instant gratification that feeds these companies greed. Don't be mad at them for what is part of society's inherent problem.

xempler said:

Are you kidding me

If I purchased a game for a ridiculous price of $60 and got bored with it, then I have a right to sell it afterwards.

What's next, I buy a car and after a few years junk it instead of selling it because it might cut into the profits of Ford or GM. Pffft these companies are getting ridiculous.

Guest said:

This logic is fundamentally flawed in the same manner that all pirates would buy the game if the pirated version wasn't available. Used games sale do not equate directly to new game sales loss. Many people would skip a title entirely just because they are unsure they will like it. How many people have purchased a crappy game. I bet most gamers have at one time or another. I have a shelf full of junk no one plays. Many of them used so it is OK.

I know game prices eventually come down, but they come down as popularity wanes and unless you buy from a online retailer you will never see them again in a store. I buy used games on impulse. I research new games and even then end up with some over hyped drink coasters. The used market also allows for people to get something back on there investment.

If they totally eliminate used games one they will see maybe 0.1% growth in sales (One study has been done concerning piracy and found eliminating it would equate to 1 new sale per 1000 pirated copies stopped), and possibly a loss in sales because some people would be less likely to invest in new game releases until they see some post hype reviews.

Used games also create fans. I have purchased new titles based on the impulse buy of an earlier incarnation of a game.

The analyst just don't understand the whole dynamic. A small fee for online content, well that may work depending on price point and long term management of the online content. Elimination of used games sales will hurt more than it will generate new sales, and may sour gamers over the long run.

They need to do more comprehensive studying on the issue before making these broad and idiotic statements. I would have never paid full price for any of the used games I have purchased. I hate that I did pay full price for some I did.

Richy2k9 said:

hello ...

this is bad, i'm not a marketing expert, so can't see it their way, but i do buy a lot, i really mean a lot of PS3 & PC games & never selling them back means i'll never face such issues.

but 1 thing for sure, i don't like the idea of preventing re-use (not second hand resale here) ,,,

how can they know if it is used or not? by registering the machine !? or will it be associated to gamertag or PSN ID?

If linked to accounts, may work, EA's model not bad, yet sometimes same problem will rise as for Machine validation.

I don't like gamesharing for PSN games, but need the feature to re-download any purchase (up to 5 times is OK, yet still too limited for me). what my console die on me & i buy another one? what if my account get hacked (assuming i don't have any credit card info on it) & i end up create another one, what will happen ? do i have to pay to play my own game ?

i feel they are pushing it too much, games sharing, second hand sales have always been there & video games industry seem to be doing quite fine, so why do they want to fix something that ain't broken LOL!

i think they'd better leave all this alone, i'll stop buying games, consoles & any accessories if they apply this, i don't want to be limited by their own limitations. Why would someone not want to keep a game? If it has enough content & great replay value, you won't even have to think about this.

then you should also ban game renting or you should stop making games!

If you want more money, do great games, if you want to milk customers, create smaller downloadable ones & sell at lower prices.

cheers!

Guest said:

Buy a PS3, don't have to pay to play games online..........food for thought.

Guest said:

Companies that pull this kinda Sh!t won't get my money.

Companies and developers that do will. /caugh humble indie bundle.

Squee

Guest said:

I hope the car companies dont think of this...what about a home builder... hmmm i built that home if you resale it --- i should make more money... this is just plain Ignorant!

nestorius said:

Are these people nucking futs? If you don't like the idea of people getting a used copy then quit charging an arm and leg for the original. These game producers are just greedy....

Guest said:

I've always been behind in getting new games because I've never been a good game player and always need help in staying alive so always need hacks. £40 is way to much for a game that I'm never going to finish. I got one game so I could race a Porsche 911 turbo only to find your had to get really good to drive the turbo.......PLEASE.....it's a game. I only got Halo to play death match at lans or was that unreal tournament. The whole game business only makes games for nerds and that's why the Wii took off big time...you don't have to be a nerd. A lot of people only want to shoot things and crash things just for fun and £40 for this nerd has got to much.

alcarin2030 alcarin2030 said:

PanicX said:

TomSEA said:

It does make sense that the developer and publisher should get some sort of royalty for the sale of a pre-owned game, but how to do that effectively and consistently is a mystery. Be interesting to see how this EA program pans out.

yukka said:

Then what do I do? Well, I take them to the shop and trade them in to purchase new games as alot of kids obviously do as well otherwise they wouldn't be able to afford new releases.

This is how they profit off of pre-owned sales. When gamers sell their old games, its not a huge leap in logic that they will use the cash to buy other games. Games that they otherwise might not be able to afford.

Adding additional fees to pre-owned games, cuts out a market of gamers that simply can't afford the over inflated release prices. yukka won't be buying as many new titles because he can't offset the cost anymore.

Would you suppose that someone that really wants to play a game, but can't afford to pay for it, might get a cracked version for free instead? I think that's the case and why this is bad for the concern about piracy FUD.

Oh no Yukka is going to have to save for one more month to get his game. What ever will he do?! America needs to learn that sometimes you don't get everything NOW NOW NOW.

Deathstar17 said:

This is greed pure and simple, it was inevitable.

aj_the_kidd said:

I'm sure most people would also want to make as much money as they possibly could from a product they spent months on. Then again if you've made millions off the game, then be great full you greedy S.O.B's

I can't see any gaming company going bankrupt because of second game sales, and if they do, well i would think that has more to do with bad management more then anything.

I'd be interested to see what other companies views are on this matter

Guest said:

stop buying these games stop the madness and see how far these companies will try to win you back stop making them richer and them fining every which way to squeeze you for money u have the power

luvhuffer luvhuffer, TechSpot Paladin, said:

So I'm reading all this in the TechSpot & Neowin Newsletter. Interestingly in the same issue down a couple lines is a story "$25.3 billion spent on games in U.S. during 2009". Not a bad year for a bad year. I'm surprised that after the game is purchased, there isn't an additional charge for each player to pay for registering to play in multi-player mode on line. They could get $50 for the game, then another $20 for Timmy to play it on line and another $20 for his brother billy to play it on line. That of course would be if they shared a computer. But they are probably sharing just the CD because dad can't afford $100 and we have just begun the criminalization of another American youth. Personally I could care less about all this. The only thing that irks me is having to go past EA's building while on the bus to the doctors. The building that was built on what used to be a wetland.

Guest said:

here is what bothers me. from what i've read in the comments so far, the majority of people haven't even read the copyright clause in the constitution. NO on is promised monies for anything. only distribution. what really kills me is that copyright is supposed to protect the "public commons" (as in "us" as citizens and our culture) from the intrestes of the copyright holder. We need for copyright to be set right (meaning back to what the constitution says) and we need corporate charters put back in ( you can thank the oil barons of the 19th century for there removal).

Guest said:

Awesome, instead of buying second hand now I will just pirate instead.

p.s I actually use steam and am happy to pay and keep my games forever :)

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.