Strauss Zelnick, CEO of Take-Two, has entered the used game market debate stating that “if Microsoft has figured out a way to tax used games, then we should get paid, too”.
Microsoft will enforce a fee for those wishing to play used games on the Xbox One. Take-Two believe that publishers should also get a share from this fee, “it’s hard to imagine why they should and we shouldn’t”, Zelnick added.
Zelnick further went on to say that Take-Two’s opinion on used games isn’t sour at all, they don’t “whine” over the worry of losing revenue. Instead they would rather focus on providing a gaming experience that will, in a way, stop the gamer from ever trading such game into a retailer.
“Let’s push up quality… and then let’s make sure to give people DLC, often free, three or four weeks out”. This he believes is the critical time for a decision to trade in a game will be made. Hopefully this philosophy will long continue with titles releasing on next gen consoles.
Sony, on the other hand, are yet to reveal what their full plans are with the used game issue. However, they have said it is up to individual publishers with regard to activation fees.
hazelam
well, it wouldn’t be the first time ms charged their users to access somebody else’s product now would it?
The Von Braun
Way i’ve been reading it, you paid the fee for activating a used game (shudder, how alien that still sounds), to MS as it went from the store to MS and MS then gave publishers a percentage of that fee.
It appeared as if MS were still ‘in talks’ with publishers on the thorny subject of just who got what.
I still cling to the belief that the whole aspect of Xbox One charging a fee came about from E.A and MS talking about how best to approach the on-going issues of reclaiming money from the huge used game market and basically taking the gamble by now enough people had broadband etc to make it viable for them to implement a system where to play games you had toi connect at least once every 24 hrs.
Maybe MS been slow in approaching other developers, or wanted some E.A on board with Xbox One to the point where they were willing to risk upsetting other publishers in the short term, by initallykeeping them out of the loop.
Utter guess work on my part, but since the press releases coming from Sony, E.A, MS etc are all so vague, hard to do much else but guess.
double-o-dave
I’m pretty sure that I read somewhere (i thought here as I don’t really explore anywhere else involving games) that when the activation fee or whatever you call it was announced most developers and publishers were completely unaware of it and were wandering what they get out of it. Wouldn’t surprise me if the only company who have agreed something with Microsoft would be EA due the exclusivity thing they mentioned… That’s just speculation though. :)
wearejimbo
In my opinion this sort of thing should be left to the publisher. The console manufacturer needs to provide a framework to allow publishers to do this, but should not expect to get anything from the transaction. MS apparently feels they should get the lions share for some reason.
dizwod
Whatever haPPENS Sony will adopt a similar or slightly better version.
Cant see MS being the evil ones and taking all the money as Sony and publishers will be missing out by releasing multi format.
End of the day I dont buy used games so it doesnt affect me in that respect but just means I wont be borrowing games at all from friends and will be spending far less money than I do at the moment on games. Some I buy on a whim and trade in or give to friends now I will have to only go for games I know I will like which means no finding little amusing games anymore :(
Sad times
yiddo
Am I being stupid, but to people saying how it’s EA etc that pushed this practice onto the console manufacturers (despite the story above hinting that Microsoft will still be taking the lions share of the money), why couldn’t Microsoft and Sony both just not accept this practice? EA would then be left with no other option but to not try and push it. There was no way that this was ever going to go down well with consumers, it just seems like a stupid decision to me. Things should be kept the same as the current gen, I don’t feel why it needs to change – apart from greed of course.
dizwod
hear hear
Broonba
“Things should be kept the same as the current gen, I don’t feel why it needs to change – apart from greed of course.”
Aye, exactly.
But I’ll reserve judgement till whenever the full story is common knowledge.
stylishkev1
I’ve never fully understood the Used game debate, when you buy a car from a used car lot you don’t pay Ford for the privilege.
If you buy a house, you don’t pay the original builder to move in.
and most importantly I’ve payed for your product, why do I need to pay to play it. Imagine doing that for a music track, pay to get the track, but pay again for the chance to hear it!!!!
I agree with what he said, if they make a good enough game, I’ll want to keep playing it by buying extra content.
I’ve bought most Map packs for Call of Duty and never sold one of the games. As far as I’m concerned that is the best way to make money.