THQ plans to deliver “robust downloadable content and premium online play” in all of its major releases in a bid to get people away from buying their games used. According to THQ CEO Brian Farrell, this online strategy will;
“Increase our digital revenue, engage players with our games for a longer period of time and reduce the impact of used games.”
THQ has already trialled one form of this when it released UFC 2010 earlier this year. Part of the game’s online multiplayer content is only accessible using a one-time-use code packaged with the game. Second hand users will have to buy another code if they want access to the Fight Camp Mode.
We wonder what else they have in store.
Source: CVG
Uhyve
You know what would be good? If they tried to encourage people to buy first hand, rather than try to discourage people from buying second hand. That may sound like the same thing, but I mean genuinly giving extra stuff to people who buy the game first hand. Things like dedicated servers for online play (which we would otherwise not have nowadays), or stupid little customizations for characters. I’m talking about things which aren’t important but you’d still like to have.
Though I don’t really mind about EAs way of doing things, I always buy first hand and at least you’ll still be able to get the blocked content if you can’t find it new down the line.
Spence1115
Which is why I prefer when they give DLC for new customers. Second hand can buy it, first hand gets it straight away. But then I don’t buy second hand anyway, unless there’s no other choice.
a inferior race
I found the DLC for single player games to be discriminating against offline players.
Kevling
The key thing the developers/publishers need to do is summed up in the line “engage players with our games for a longer period of time” – they need to focus on making games people don’t WANT to trade-in. That’s the only sure fire way that publishers can “beat” the seed games Market. It’s one of the reasons Criterion did their “year of Paradise” for Burnout – they made people want to keep the game rather than trade it in, and from what I can see it seemed to have worked really well.
Make a decent game that people want to keep, support it well with a combination of free and paid for extra content (not horse armour). Sounds easy when written like that but I imagine it’s a very difficult thing to get right.
Kevling
“seed”=”used”.
Following on, I think the fact that it’s a hard balance to get right means we’ll see more initiatives like this…
heedbaw
lol, Got to love these money grabbing b’stards. I can see why they’d want to do something like this, and probably pointed out elswhere, but make something worth 45-50 quid and I’ll pay for it.
And surely the whole point of capitalism & the free market is that you have the choice to buy as you see fit, whether new or used, so if the retailers are undercutting the publishers that’s tough titties. Make a product worth buying full price and they won’t have a problem.
So now they’re losing money/ going under. Well they chose to be a part of the system, now live with the consequences. Survival of the fittest, and all that jazz.
tonycawley
One of the sillyest comments i’ve ever read. If all devs and publishers went under through lack of profitability then there would be no second hand games market as there would be no games made. I can understand why they’re looking for money from second hand, but i think they’re going about it the wrong way. They need to be taking a slice of the retailer’s profit, not taking it from the consumer (again).
heedbaw
But it’s only some devs’ & publishers that are touting this, so realistically they’re either totally screwed or just out to make a fast buck. I agree that they are hitting the wrong people for this, but they’re not going to try & squeeze the people that sell their products. 1 or 2 lost customers isn’t much compared to 1 or 2 lost retail chains, so the only way they can solve it is by screwing the consumers.
pitbullmern
If THQ released a game worth paying full price for then i would buy it but none of there games are first day purchase for me. some arent even budget bin buys to be fair.
Thats why they’ve mad a loss so far this year
pitbullmern
Their not there. doh
a inferior race
Retailers should be able to bundle the online codes with pre-owned games. As this would enable publishers to keep a good relationship with retailers and allow retailers to make a few quid selling online codes. Everyone wins.
hazelam
how about these publishers stop releasing identikit sequels to their games every year.
the developers of guitar hero are saying they’re only going to make one a year now, like that’s the height of artistic integrity.
look at activision, a few months from launch of the new cod they’re selling map packs for last year’s edition.
how many football games will fifa release this year?
any company that releases a sports game with the year in the title has no call to complain about preowned sales, not when trade ins are usually paying part of the price of the roster updates, which let’s face it is most of the new content of these games.
they’re happy selling people virtually the same game time after time, reusing most of the assets of the previous year’s game, but buyers aren’t allowed to do anything similar, like using the old version to offset the cost of the new version.
but then this industry seems to have a sickening level of greed these days, so it’s hardly surprising there’s some hypocrisy when it comes to money.
i still question the legality of deliberately devaluing somebody elses purchase like this.
they’d never get away with it in any other industry.
hiab-x
Watch them FAIL, people.
Make better games and players might keep hold of them for longer.
iAvernus
Well actually I don’t have a problem with this. I understand that they are losing money from the used game market, so this is their way of countering it. It’s business! You don’t think take risks, you don’t get the dinero. Just buy the game new, or don’t buy used games for the online feature.