THQ: No Sympathy For Pre-Owned Buyers
"Loyal fans" who buy first-hand are more important.
Yesterday we reported of THQ's intention to monetise the pre-owned market by locking out online play in Smackdown vs RAW 2011. That might upset consumers of second-hand games, but the publisher has said that it "doesn't care."
The creative director for the company's wrestling games, Cory Ledesma, told CVG that "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."
He added that he hopes the initiative doesn't disappoint people, but "when the game's bought used we get cheated," commenting on the fact that publishers do not see any of the profits made by game stores from second-hand games.
"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 creative director for the company's wrestling games, Cory Ledesma, told CVG that "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."
He added that he hopes the initiative doesn't disappoint people, but "when the game's bought used we get cheated," commenting on the fact that publishers do not see any of the profits made by game stores from second-hand games.
"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."
Read More Like This
Comments
Trigger 24 Aug 2010 09:28
1/7
This is going to be common practice within a year isn't it?
I don't really buy a lot of pre owned games, but I have done in the past and I'd be very disappointed if I got a game without all the content. I wonder if this is going to effect trading games in too? As I have been known to do that in order to get new games.
The more I think about this the more I feel I'm shafted! :(
I don't really buy a lot of pre owned games, but I have done in the past and I'd be very disappointed if I got a game without all the content. I wonder if this is going to effect trading games in too? As I have been known to do that in order to get new games.
The more I think about this the more I feel I'm shafted! :(
Old Codger 24 Aug 2010 10:42
2/7
If/when this becomes common practice then pre-owned games will drop in value quite a lot. Trade-ins will be practically worthless. I can't say whether it will affect game stores or not as i suppose more people will end up buying new games rather than pre-owned ones. It just means that once you've bought a game, played it and beat it, it's worthless and you can't trade it in.
more comments below our sponsor's message
EssBen 24 Aug 2010 11:52
3/7
I'm sure that will garner you nothing but love and respect among young gamers who wont at all feel cheated by you when they take home half a game that to be fair to them, they paid for :/
But you still don't dare piss off the retailers do you (who are the ones making money off you on this), you spineless, gouging cocks.
But you still don't dare piss off the retailers do you (who are the ones making money off you on this), you spineless, gouging cocks.
realvictory 24 Aug 2010 12:04
4/7
Games aren't an essential commodity, it's just entertainment. There are other ways to be entertained, there are hundreds of other games, and entertainment itself isn't even essential.
If people don't think they're getting a good deal, they aren't going to pay. So developers have to be careful. Loyalty extends even beyond the people who buy your products; upsetting people may affect more than the sales of one title :P
If people don't think they're getting a good deal, they aren't going to pay. So developers have to be careful. Loyalty extends even beyond the people who buy your products; upsetting people may affect more than the sales of one title :P
realvictory 24 Aug 2010 12:09
5/7
Another thing, I don't understand who gets cheated by the sales of preowned games. Just because you remove the opportunity to buy a preowned game doesn't mean someone's going to buy the new RRP version instead.
It's slightly disturbing how they're spinning it to sound like a form of piracy. People are PAYING for these games. Punish the retailer, not the people who play your games.
It's slightly disturbing how they're spinning it to sound like a form of piracy. People are PAYING for these games. Punish the retailer, not the people who play your games.
TimSpong 24 Aug 2010 12:36
6/7
I return to my very basic solution - which calls for a working marketplace where all sides are aiming at being equitable. Here it is:
Retailer buys £x game from punter for £x-y. Punter gets £(x-y) to spend. Fair enough.
Retailer sells same game on for £(x-y)+m. 'm' being the jolly old mark-up.
Retailer passes £f to the publisher where 'f' is retailer's take minus a fee to the publisher.
Punter can then buy new games. Retailer makes some cash. Publisher gets some cash. Punter can actually afford to buy Drain & Grynch Corridors of Skateboard I or something, and then decide whether she wants to buy the inevitable sequel for full-price. Thus giving publisher and retailer a full-priced customer.
It works like the performing artist's fee for radio play...
Failing that, simply tie the game to the MAC address of the console or PC and screw anybody who wants to pay what they can afford.
I'm rubbish at economics though.
Tim
Retailer buys £x game from punter for £x-y. Punter gets £(x-y) to spend. Fair enough.
Retailer sells same game on for £(x-y)+m. 'm' being the jolly old mark-up.
Retailer passes £f to the publisher where 'f' is retailer's take minus a fee to the publisher.
Punter can then buy new games. Retailer makes some cash. Publisher gets some cash. Punter can actually afford to buy Drain & Grynch Corridors of Skateboard I or something, and then decide whether she wants to buy the inevitable sequel for full-price. Thus giving publisher and retailer a full-priced customer.
It works like the performing artist's fee for radio play...
Failing that, simply tie the game to the MAC address of the console or PC and screw anybody who wants to pay what they can afford.
I'm rubbish at economics though.
Tim
PaulRayment 24 Aug 2010 20:36
7/7
The pros and cons of this are debatable (debate away) but the ball drop here is that THQ have chosen a poor game to do this with. I've played the most recent 3 or 4 versions of SVR and have to say online pretty sucks.
This will work for games like COD, Halo and FIFA which live on their online but I'm sure many won't care about this.
The only online element that's worth it on SVR will/could be downloading of extra characters - if they lock you out of this they are fools. I doubt they will so I'm sure many will be happy.
Of course, the other option is to buy the game and not risk playing online, in case it sucks - keeping the code and retaining more value. The THQ is down an online player.
This will work for games like COD, Halo and FIFA which live on their online but I'm sure many won't care about this.
The only online element that's worth it on SVR will/could be downloading of extra characters - if they lock you out of this they are fools. I doubt they will so I'm sure many will be happy.
Of course, the other option is to buy the game and not risk playing online, in case it sucks - keeping the code and retaining more value. The THQ is down an online player.