s we prepare for the coming tide of next generation systems, we should be anticipating developments on all the great things we connect with the present crop of systems. Moving forward we anticipate: better graphics, faster chips, more engaging games, you get the idea. But not everything that we are anticipating will be a progressive movement for gaming. At least, as far as Sony and Microsoft are concerned, you can wave good-bye to playing used games on their systems. Although these are only rumors at this point, it wouldn't be astonishing if they came to fruition. It is quite plausible, particularly when taking into account that several game publishers have fired shots at the used game market.
EA enlarged its job to comprise playing used games online. Gamers would now have to pay $10, along with the cost of the used game that they bought, in order to have use of the online elements of their game. Ubisoft has since followed suit, demanding an internet pass for its games as well. You'll be able to identify the games which require an internet pass as they bare the,"Uplay Passport", emblem on the box.
Ubisoft decided they had take things a step further and implement Digital Rights Management, a practice more often associated with DVD or CD anti-piracy efforts. Assassins Creed 2 was the first game to be effected by this practice. To be able to play the PC version of Assassins Creed 2, gamers have to create an account with Ubisoft and remain logged into that account as a way to play the game. This implies that if you lose your internet connection, the game will automatically pause and make an effort to reestablish the connection. But if you are unlucky enough to be unable to reconnect to the net you'll need to continue from your last saved game; losing any improvement you may have made since then. This will be the case for all of Ubisoft's PC titles, regardless of one playing single-player or multi-player. While Digital Rights Management has been used to battle DVD and CD piracy for quite some time now, this will indicate the first time it is been used for a video game. In light of Ubisoft's implementation of DRM, Matthew Humphries of Geek.com, cautions that it is feasible that eventually even console games will require online registration in order to play them.
So what's the reason for all with this? According to According to Denis Dyack, the head of Silicon Knights, the sale of used games is cannibalizing the gain of the main game marketplace. He also asserts that the used game market is somehow causing the price of new games to climb. His proposed solution is to move far from physical disks and embrace digital distribution. Basically he'd like to find services like Steam or EA's Origin replace conventional hard copies. There are even rumors that the X-Box 720 will cover the exclusive use of digital downloads and not use disks whatsoever. Whether Microsoft will actually follow through with that strategy remains to be seen.
One could assert that Sony has laid the basis for preventing used games from working on their future system. At the very least, they've already made quite an attempt to make used games significantly less desired. Kath Brice, of Gamesindustry.biz, reported that the latest SOCOM game for PSP, SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs Fireteam Bravo 3, will require customers who buy a used copy to pay an addition $20 dollars to receive a code for online play.
Without some real facts, it seems to me like a whole lot to do about nothing. Correct me if I'm wrong but you haven't heard Infinity Ward complaining about the used game market and it affecting their bottom line. That is likely because they are too busy counting their money earned by creating games that individuals actually want to play. Imagine that.
In my opinion, don't assume all game is worth $60 just because it is the suggested retail price. Looking at things objectively, don't assume all game is created equally, hence don't assume all game is worthy of costing $60. Whether it is because that particular game failed to meet expectations and live up to the hype or because it lacks any kind of replay value. It is foolish to assert that gamers should pay top dollar for every game particularly when they all too frequently turn out to be terrible disappointments, like Ninja Gadian 3, or they are riddled with glitches like Skyrim.
I imagine that the War on Used Games is nothing more than a money grab by developers, worried that they're unable to cash in on a very profitable marketplace. To put it in dollars and cents, in 2009 GameStop reported almost $2.5 million dollars in sales from the sale of used games consoles and used games. And not one red cent of that gain reaches the pockets of game publishers. Greed as the motivating factor for the declaration of War on Used Games is transparent. Especially if you think about that when GameStop started separating their sales from new games and used games in their own financial statements, EA thereafter instituted their $10 dollar fee for used games.
In the absence of empirical evidence, I Will need to settle for anecdotal. I'll use myself as an illustration. I'm planning to buy a used copy of Ninja Gaidan 2. I've never been a huge fan of the series. I used ton't play the first one because I didn't have an Xbox and at the time it was an Xbox exclusive. And I never played the original version. For sure, I was never clamoring to play Ninja Gaidan 2. However the innovation in the second embodiment of the game, which allows you to disembowel your enemies, is enough of a novelty that I'd like to play through it at some point. I can buy it now, used, for about 10 dollars. If it was only being sold at full price I 'd probably pass on playing it totally or possibly let it. My purpose is that game developers will not be losing money because of used games; you can not miss money you weren't going to receive anyhow. They are just not getting money they weren't going to get to begin with.
Unless you've got an important amount of disposable income and a considerable amount of free time, you are probably like me and you prioritize which games you intend to buy and how much you are willing to pay in their opinion. You decide which games are must haves and which games you'd like to play but are willing to wait for a price fall before getting them. Then there are the games that you're thinking about, but they often drop through the cracks because they are not all that high in your radar and you'll possibly pick them up several months afterwards, as well as years after their release, if you ever pick them up at all.
I think it is ironic that the looming death of the used game market could probably spell the passing of GameStop who, ironically, shove their customers to pre-order new games and buy them at full price. One would think that game publishers would be appreciative about that service rather than detest GameStop and handle used games with such scorn. Preorders not only help boost their games but they function as a prediction of potential sales also.
I've just once pre-ordered a game myself. At the behest of J. Agamemnon, I pre-ordered Battlefield 3, which is ironically a property of EA. I paid full price for this particular game and was happy to achieve that. In large part since I was allowed access to several weapons and maps that I 'd have had to wait to download had I not pre-ordered it. I propose that instead of punishing gamers for desiring to save their hard earned cash, the gaming industry has to learn to incentivize gamers into desiring to pony up to that $60 dollar price.
I titled this article The War on Used Games in a attempt to be tongue-in-cheek and poke fun at how whenever the government declares war on drugs or terror or whatever it may be, they just succeed in exacerbating the problem. It should come as no surprise seeing as the way in which the government tends to take the most asinine strategy potential trying to "solve" problems. The end result is always the same; valuable time and resources are squandered, and the problem is that much worse than it was before they intervened. If the gaming industry does indeed go down this path; they will just hurt themselves in the long run, fail to share in the sales they so greedily covet and worst of all, hurt their customers, who keep the gaming industry abreast with currency.FIFA 17 Coin generator It is really ironic and actually quite fitting that it is EA who are spearheading the attempt to attack the used game market when they themselves are among the greatest beneficiaries of used games. Chipsworld MD Don McCabe, told GamesIndustry.biz that EA has what he referred to as a "franchise software house" in that they "update their titles; FIFA, Madden; all of these are effectively exactly the same name updated each year. And individuals trade in this past year's for this year's." He went onto say that those names are the ones which are usually traded in. Shutting down the used games market effectively destroys a tried and tested procedure in which fans of EA's franchises keep up to date with each of EA's yearly launches.
Don McCabe, an executive at Chipsworld, clarifies that, "consumers will not prosper under this new system, as copies of the game will lose their resale value". He goes on to say that retailers will "only readjust [the price] bearing in mind you have to buy the coupon." The CEO of SwapGame caveats that "customers who trade in for cash or credit achieve this to get new games they could otherwise not afford." This implies that ultimately it'll be the publisher who ends up losing money because when retailers adjust their costs to reflect the increase in cost for used games, the resale value of the game will fall and new games are less likely to be bought.