THQ not worried about upsetting used game buyers with new game bonuses

I wonder if they're concerned about convincing new game buyers they're greedy douche bags?

@Evil Pikachu

"when the game's bought used we get cheated,"

You're right, that's not accurate. Your characterization is much more accurate. When a game doesn't have the lasting quality that makes you want to keep it around, and you sell it used, the new game's value suffers. And for very good reason. The publisher isn't cheated when the free market doesn't support a $60 game price as long as they want. There's a reason the best games are much harder to buy used, and their new price stay high for a long time... it's quality.

No doubt whatsoever that this WWE game is poor quality. That's why the price will plummet. And it will plummet even further when people realize they can't get as much for the game used.

BTW, I've been selling games on Amazon for some time now, and buying new games with that money. It's absolutely led to me purchasing 40 new titles this year, as opposed to probably 20. Devs are not losing a penny because of my behavior, and I resent this crap. I know in advance that if I buy these gimped games I will get less. That makes me eager to buy the game used instead of new, so I don't take as much of a hit.

@Dustin F
I don't think you understand. Selling your games doesn't effect the developers, but them being bought by someone is. Used games don't revenue ANY money for a developer. You buy a used game at Gamestop or any other retailer, the profit GOES TO THE RETAILER. So think of it this way, if a developer ships 250,000 copies of a new game, and only 100,000 copies get bought, that profit goes to the developer, but they are still at a loss.

Now anyone else who may be interested in that game could go to the used games of that 100,000 instead of buying one of the remaining 150,000 new copies. Technically, a game can sell more than it ships if its bought used repeatedly, and the developer sees none of that money, nor do used game sales get acknolwedged.

So yes, when a game is bought used, the developer gets cheated. Thats why you should buy New games when they are on sale. That way the developer doesn't get cheated and you get the bonuses of buying a new game for a cheaper price.

@Nolan North: They can cry me a river for all I care. Products from all industries are bought and sold used all the time. That's life. As Dustin F said, perhaps they should be making games that are actually enticing enough to make me want to pay $60 upon release. They aren't being "cheated." They're just releasing crappy games (this *is* THQ we're talking about).

But even if the games aren't low quality, used game sales aren't doing anything to hurt the developer, and here's why: people who buy used games weren't going to buy the game new anyways. Honestly, why do you think a market for used games exists? Because there are people who are only willing to pay $x for the game, and $x

Oh yeah, I should also mention that actions like this also work to encourage video game piracy. Some people will resort to piracy if they can't get the games used. There are certain battles companies simply cannot win, and the sooner they realize that, the better off they'll be.

Rule #1 in any business: never, ever blame your customers for your problems. It'll just turn around to bite you in the ass.

Um, my first comment appears to have been cut off for some reason. From the last sentence:

...Because there are people who are only willing to pay $x for the game, and $x is less than buying new. By attempting to destroy the market for used games, these developers are really just shooting themselves in the foot. Gamers who routinely buy new games and attempt to reduce their costs by selling them used after playing them will have far less incentive to do so because their odds of selling the game will go down. These gamers also don't want to pay a full $60 - they want that price subsidized by selling them off used. So what do you suppose will happen? These gamers won't buy the game new, that's what. Not to mention actions like this leave a terrible mark on your reputation as a publisher, making people even less willing to support you as a business.

@Axlin

"Products from all industries are bought and sold used all the time."

Hit the nail on the head there. I've seen the used game argument played out so many time, yet even now I simply cannot understand what makes games so special. A quick look at Ebay will show that there is a used market for absolutely anything. My house is 2nd hand, my car is 2nd hand - in fact, half the stuff I own is 2nd hand...

Until someone gives me a good reason for the game industry to be treated differently to everything else, my attitude will remain the same - bollocks to them.

@Nolan North

Actually you are completely wrong. Those 250,000 copies are purchased outright by the retailer. Therefore, the 150,000 new copies that dont sell are a loss for the retailer, not the publisher. The publisher gets all the money from all the copies that retailers purchase upfront not after they are sold in stores.

If the game sucks but the publisher has too many copies sitting in the warehouse that retailers aren't purchasing because they still have an excess of 150,000 unsold copies, then the publishers offer price protection and credit the retailers for a price drop in order to encourage sales. Do you know what that means? It means the game they made wasn't popular or it was crap. So in the end, the retailer suffers, not the developer or the publisher. Get your facts straight.

@Xoxaan
Yea, I guess that wasn't the best example to use, but if the retailers don't sell all 250,000 copies, then they won't distribute too much more, if at all. And Gamestop can get endless profits from selling their games because they buy the games, then sell them, then they get sold back for less, then resold at a higher price, and then rinse and repeat. Basically, Gamestop can see more money than the developer or publisher ever would from the game they make.

@Xoxaan
And though I admit its a bad example, nothing I said was actually "wrong". I just didn't explain it very well. I said the developer is at a loss if not all their games sell (which would cause them to distribute more), which is true. I also said that a game could sell more than it ships just by milking the same used games. You just assumed that I meant the retailers give the game profits to the publisher/developer, which I didn't say (and after typing that, I can't imagine HOW I would say that any better).

@Axlin

So you're telling me that there's NO ONE--NO ONE AT ALL--who would've bought the game new if it wasn't available used? Really?

@future42 graphics look awful? I wouldnt say that, sure they aren't Heavy Rain quality but what do you expect? its a YEARLY game....doesnt take 3-4 years to make so dont expect HUGE leaps in graphics from it.....especially not until next gen....

@Chris DPSN AggieCEO XBLThe Aggi

I bought 2006 on PS2, and then tried one of the 360 ones, and the graphics looked almost the same.

@future42 Every time I read someone say that a series is the same thing over and over again I translate it to "I am not into this genre".

@future42 uhhhhh yea.....ok.....HD graphics TOTALLY look the same as PS2 graphics....either thats a GREAT thing for the PS2, or a horrible thing for the 360....I can EASILY see a difference in graphics from SvR '07 and SvR '10....especially with hair movement and sweat

@FriedConsole Yeah, I really dislike games that release the same thing every year. Some games it's sad to see them go that direction like Skate. I bought Skate 2, and it was fun, but they are now releasing one every year and that isn't enough time to make enough new features to warrant another purchase.

@Chris DPSN AggieCEO XBLThe Aggi

The graphics still look pretty similar. Another huge thing they never fix is the terrible collision detection.

@Chris DPSN AggieCEO XBLThe Aggi
A game that comes out yearly isn't an excuse to be crap. It's just shows how extra crappy it is. They get a yearly chance to fix the crap and they don't which makes it extra crappy. Look at games like the show and madden. Even though most people don't like to purchase a game yearly because they not enough change has occurred to warrant a purchase every year, at least they improve with each passing year. It's not just a roster update

@thisredengine U dunno dude....WWE games still sale million each year....sure it doesnt sale what Madden, or NBA Live/Elite does but it still does well....they would take their time I think if WWE let them....but with new wrestlers coming out every 4 months ,or jumping ship to TNA, they pretty much HAVE to make a new one yearly....

@thisredengine

At least THQ already realized that yearly releases won't work well with UFC, and said that it'll be a few years before the next UFC game comes out.

@onan thats what I do....

@AriesWarlock
I wish I could upvote you more

@Diodax Hey, it's the thought that counts. Thanks!

@AriesWarlock, I couldn't agree with you more. Since when did buying something used become "cheating"?

I'm no economist, but people are going to buy a product for what they think it's worth. If you want people to buy your game new at $60, then you'd better make a freaking good game. If I don't think a game is worth the new price, then I wait until I can pick it up used at the price I think it's worth.

@AriesWarlock
I don't think that's a very good analogy. Textbooks are something that you need, a video game is simply a luxury. It's a form of entertainment, while a textbook (since most only buy them for a class they are taking) is something you must own if you want to be successful in school.

I think cheating is a strong word for it, but I agree with him that they shouldn't care about the needs of people who buy games used, they're not aiding THQ in any way by doing that so they feel no obligation. Besides which, most of these incentives are still available as DLC if people who buy used still want them.

@Bryan H
Not to mention that unlike New videogames, New textbooks don't go on sale at bookstores usually. I got Call of Duty World at War for $20 new only a couple months after it came out. $60 price tag my ass, if you're not willing to pay full price, wait for it to go on sale, it just takes a little patience, and if you're not willing to shell out 60 bones, then clearly, you're patient enough to wait for a sale.

And for the record, I buy my expensive college textbooks new and for full price, because the used ones tend to smell or have writing in them.

@Bryan H
I don't understand what does it matter if one product is a luxury and the other isn't. In the market, they are both products that can be bought used, providing nothing for their publisher. And why should get they anything from used sales? When a game is sold to an end user (the one who payed the $60), the purpose of this unit in the cosmos has been fulfilled, it's done. Whatever happens to this unit is of no concern to the publisher. Sure, it bothers them not being able to profit from used sales, but that is the way of life. If it bothers them so much they should put up their own store.

@AriesWarlock
This makes quite a lot of sense. I agree with it, but I guess I'm more sympathetic towards the developers since I'm studying to become one, and as an artist, I can see how it wouldn't feel satisfying to know that people are making money off your product and you see nothing after selling it yourself (assuming you actually sold it rather than giving it away).

@Nolan North
I think a good step for the industry would be to finally reduce the price of new games and push those who are waiting to buy used to buy new.

@AriesWarlock
That already happened, and it didn't help. Did you know that SNES games used to be $80? Or N64 games being $60?

Last generation was where $50 was the average price. Wii games have stayed at that price, but PS3 and 360 games went up due to production costing more for them. Its really a problem with the consumer that buys used games. A good amount of games go on sale or clearance ALL THE TIME. A lot of times you can get a game new cheaper than its used price. I think the used game consumer just needs to look at more sales ads.

@BananaBoat Wow. That is a big stretch for the "it their own fault" reasoning.

@BananaBoat

When you buy a game, you dont OWN the game. YOu own the right to play the game.

@Faenix According to the First Sale Doctrine, you own the game.

@Faenix - When you buy a physical copy of a game, the first sale doctrine applies (thus gamestop is able to exist). You don't gain copyright over the content of the disc, so you can't make a copy, but you can sell that physical disc (and the one game license included therein) any time you want. Likewise, gamestop is legally allowed to buy that disc, and then resell it. There is no legal gray area there. Whether or not there is a moral gray area is up to personal opinion, but I'd personally say that there isn't. It's your property, and you can do whatever you want with it. When it becomes gamestops property, they are allowed to do whatever they want with it. Under the logic at play here, a library is cheating book publishers because it buys one copy of a book and then checks it out to hundreds of people over the lifetime of that book.

I'm not defending gamestop (I hate them...so much) but the first sale doctrine is more important now than it has ever been. Content creators are attempting to circumvent by essentially trying to sell us digital licenses instead of actual product, that we are then unable to resell. I can see it from THQ's perspective, but I happen to think that they're being quite petty, and failing to see why their product doesn't deserve any special treatment over books, movies, or anything else that the first sale doctrine covers.

@Fried Console - I realize it is a stretch, but am I wrong? Could EA, Activision, and others not have banded together years ago to create retail locations for both new and used game sales? They relied on third parties instead, and it is coming around to bite them in the wallet. I'm not saying they should have done that, or that it would be wise to do it now, just that they had just as much of an opportunity to profit on the used sales of their product as anyone else. Capitalism is a bitch sometimes, especially for content creators (as opposed to copyright holders; namely the corporations that actually hold the rights to IP's, instead of the people that actually do the creating. That is another argument though)

@Faenix

Wow. So when you buy a car, you're just buying the right to drive it? So at any moment, Ford could just come in and say, "Times up! We're taking our property back." Are you completely bereft of all logic?

@Xoxaan
There is a difference between cars and videogames, with videogames you only own the physical media, the disc. Whereas with a car, you own the car.

Think of it like this, when you buy a car, you don't own the model type, or any schematics. Same with videogames. You can drive/play them and resell that particular car/videogame, but you can't make copies of the game/remake the exact same car.

@4dSwissCheese

I agreed with THQ after reading the article, but now I agree with you after reading your comment.

@(Unverified)
Totally agree.

But seriously, though, don't use my controller. I've got it broken in just the way I like :)

@(Unverified)

Completely agree with you. Its unfortunate that there are gamers out there who are so eager to give up their property rights. If the publishers want to make more money its quite simple. Make good games and people will buy them new. Since there isn't a value gradient for games, its up to the customer to decide what game is worth what price and used games fill that space. Clash of the Titans is a piece of garbage but it costs $59.99. Apparently it has the same value and fun factor as Halo, Mass Effect or Call of Duty. If publishers want more new game sales, start lowering the price on the crap you keep making and more importantly, give retailers a larger profit margin. The small margin they get on new games and systems isn't enough to keep a store open.

Maybe Gamestop, Walmart and Best Buy and all of the indy shops should start to charge the publishers with marketing fees for all the awareness they create for all of the games. I know that I end up learning about a lot of titles just because I see them in the store. Or maybe they should charge them a rental fee for the shelf space they sit on. Everyone knows the crap titles just sit there and collect dust. The retailers are being cheated because they could using that space to sell a better product.

I'm not a fan of Gamestop (which is why I shop at a local gaming store) but the path the publishers are taking is pretty treacherous. They need to stop blaming everyone for their own failings.

@golobulus

No Mercy?

@pButter WCW vs. NWO: World Tour, appears to be the one.