It’s all kicking off in the world of pre-owned games this week with EA implementing their plan to stop online access for second hand games. Many of you are annoyed but have you a reason to be pissed off?
EA have been rather clever in how they target the pre-owned market. Let’s say that in some strange and fantastic parallel world I like football, can name all 30 of the recently picked England squad and I have purchased the new FIFA Game from HMV for £40. Some of my £40 will eventually find its way back to EA, all is well with the world. I can play online as the cost of my joining the EA servers is in included in the £40.
Suddenly, I come to my sense and realise that Kylie, fashion and clubbing are so much more fun than football and sell my copy of FIFA back to HMV for £20. Thank you very much HMV that will buy me at least two pints in a London nightclub.
Whilst I’m reaching for the lasers on the dance floor another PS3 owner – let’s call him Michael – decides he wants FIFA but does not want to pay full price. Tying his husky up outside HMV (no dogs allowed) in he wanders, picks up the copy of FIFA that previously belong to me and pays HMV £30. I’ve already been paid £20 so that leaves HMV with £10 and that £10 stays with HMV, none of the money goes back to EA.
Does Michael have the right to play online? It’s a tricky question. On one hand, no he does not as EA haven’t received any money to pay for his online presence. On the other you could argue that I have already paid for the online presence, as I am no longer using it then my ‘online rights’ have passed to Michael.
EA are effectively blocking people using the same copy of a game for multiple online accounts, you can make a sound argument for why they are introducing the $10 charge. That leads me on to my next point, and the reason for this waffle.
Blitz Games Studios co-founder Andrew Oliver believes that piracy is not the biggest problem facing the game industry, it’s the pre-owned market. Speaking to Develop he said,
“Arguably the bigger problem on consoles now is the trading in of games,”
“I understand why players do this, games are expensive and after a few weeks of playing you’ve either beaten it, or got bored of it so trading it back in to help pay for the next seems sensible when people are short of cash.”
He then cites figures suggesting that games can be traded in up to four times which he says that if this is true,
“Publisher and developer royalties are effectively quartered.”
Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Possibly the Wrongest thing ever, hiding in a bucket full of Wrong in the country of Wrong, Wrongworld. This is why he is staggeringly incorrect:
I can buy a Kylie CD. I can sell it back to a second hand record store. Kylie does not come round my house demanding half of the money I sold her CD for. I wouldn’t complain if she did, but she does not.
I buy Dodge Ram SR-10 truck I like it. I drive it. I get bored of it. I sell it. Dodge do not pop round for a cup of coffee and then steal all the money in my piggy back as I had the nerve to sell their car.
I buy some corduroy slacks from Marks & Spencer’s. I immediately realise I have made a massive fashion error and sell them on to a clothing exchange. Marks & Spencer couldn’t give two hoots.
For Andrew Oliver to make a claim on the second hand value of a game he produced is nothing short of greedy. I can think of no other industry that would even dare to make such a claim. Once that copy of Assassins Creed has been sold to me, it belongs to me, that single physical shiny disc is mine, not Ubisoft’s.
So why is the pre-owned market annoying publishers? Well the simple reason is it’s huge. HMV, GAME, Blockbuster, Play.com, Argos, every major retailer now deals in second hand games. If the second hand market was out of sight, hidden away on eBay I would not by typing this but as HMV, GAME and all the others are making huge profits from second hand sales then Andrew Oliver can see all those pounds and dollars that ‘should’ have been spent on a new copy of a game. Instead, retailers are selling pre-owned games, pocketing the profit and leaving the publishers annoyed. If the big chains did not deal in pre-owned games then no one would care.
If the game is a stand-alone game with no online content I see no reason why games companies can complain about the second market. Every other consumer product in the world can be sold second hand, why should games be different?
If the game does contain online elements then it could be argued that publishers do have some cause for concern. Keeping servers online, moderating players, upgrades and patches all cost money. If the publisher did not get any more from you when you bought the game second hand, surely it is fair they are compensated some other way if you wish to you use their online services?
Perhaps that explains why publishers are insisting on jamming Online gaming in to games that really don’t need online, such as Assassins Creed 2.5…
Source : Develop