Publishers's anti-used games policies and what we can do about it

[Jam Stunna]

I think that being anti-used games is also shortsighted from a sales pespective.

Holy anecdotal evidence Batman!

It wasn't until I went to college that I started buying games. Most of the games I played as a kid were borrowed from friends. But playing DKC2 and LttP as a kid led me to buy DKCR and Skyward Sword later, at full price.

An even more direct example: I bought Persona 3 and 4 used, and loved them, so I bought Catherine at full price, and when P4G is released, I'll be buying that at full price for a friend who never played the original P4. Borrowing Guilty Gear from a friend years ago means that I'll be buying the online version when its released.

The point of entry for me for alot of game series were borrowed and used (and yes, even pirated) games. At the time I didn't have the money, but when I do, I make sure to support the games that I want to keep playing. I would have been less likely to pick up any of those games initially if I had to pay full price.

 

[theeboredone]

^ I think all those personal examples are solid, because I've heard other people make these claims as to why used games should stick around. However, let me ask you this...do you honestly believe that this way of thought is reflected on the majority of gamers? I can understand if playing a borrowed or used game leads to interest in the series/company, but is that really a big means of making money? How many people who buy used or borrow, end up buying more from the franchise? I feel pessimistic in that area.

I'm surprised how no one has mentioned that games like Minecraft, Lord of the Rings online, Team Fortress, have yielded a great amount of revenue despite being free to play. Just goes to show that, a cheaper game can lead to companies still making money. I don't want to, in the future pay 60-70 dollars for a game, then all this DLC that may actually be relevant to the plot of the game (Mass Effect and Fallout.) Big reason why I wait for games to get super cheap (generally used), so I can afford the DLCs.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Maybe not, but I think it's less likely that gamers are going to jump into a series when the asking point is $60 or more thanks to DLC, without at least being able to try the series out.

 

[Pluvia]

I'm surprised how no one has mentioned that games like Minecraft, Lord of the Rings online, Team Fortress, have yielded a great amount of revenue despite being free to play. Just goes to show that, a cheaper game can lead to companies still making money. I don't want to, in the future pay 60-70 dollars for a game, then all this DLC that may actually be relevant to the plot of the game (Mass Effect and Fallout.) Big reason why I wait for games to get super cheap (generally used), so I can afford the DLCs.

It's because they're MMO's, which work differently, and despite being free it is a clever marketing strategy to get you to spend more money. For example:

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/11/22/dc-universe-online-700-increase-in-daily-revenue-since-going-free-to-play/

Also the Mass Effect DLC's are necessary, they just add to the enjoyment of the game despite most of them being plot irrelevent or easy to do without.

 

[theeboredone]

Yes, but I remember reading an article somewhere a while back that suggested gaming companies should separate SP and MP for those who don't care about one or the other so users can save money. On top of that, things like DLC should be cheapened or at least offered in a package (which Rockstar and UC3 did.)

I also fail to see how at least ME2's DLC was irrelevant. Yes some of them don't add to the "core" story, but it adds to the character development. I do know that FO's DLC is generally important. The biggest outcry being in FO3, where the first DLC took place after the ending, and there was more work to do.

In any case, the topic is about used games, so it's all moot what I just said.

 

[Life]

Well...

 

[Yoshi]

Bahahahaha that comic is so much kinds of win!!!