Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 05:18:53 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Aaargh bastard ripoff merchants

Started by Famous Mortimer, February 22, 2011, 08:30:44 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Famous Mortimer

Just got a pre-owned "Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit" and it turns out that the sly fuckers are getting money from us by having a code that you need to enter to play the game online. Fine if you bought it new, but pre-owned and you've got to shell out again.

I HATE YOU GAMES COMPANIES

So, share your ripoff experience, and if anyone's got a spare online code for the game for the 360, please get in touch :)

madhair60

I find this practice quite reasonable, but then I am mad(hair60)

Utter Shit

It's a bit annoying when for so long you've been able to pick up second hand game so cheap, but really they aren't ripping you off, are they? It's not really 'fair' on the video games companies that one copy of a game can be sold to loads of people and make them only £30 or so while second hand shops can sell the same game over and over again and keep making money on it. Seems completely fair enough to me, albeit irritating because we've been riding the gravy train.


Zetetic

^ Exactly. It was bad enough when we had physical books and you could re-sell them over-and-over again, with EVERY FUCKING CHAPTER INCLUDED. How can you expect to make any money like that?

Anyway, it's a horrible scheme. While you're continuing to sell physical items (CDs and the like) as if they were the product, it's disingenuous and misleading to then have that physical product not act as the entirety of that the product. The very fact that it comes as a surprise to Famous Mortimer seems a good indication of that. 

On a similar note, selling games and certain kinds of DLC/add-on content can seem very unpleasant (albeit not actually unethical in the manner of the OP's situation) to me. Examples of this include Dragon Age's Shale and Civ 5's civilisations. I say certain kinds, because I'm concerned with content that seems rather than be additional to the game, be content that has been removed from the game in a post-hoc fashion. I appreciate that this is very much a subjective judgement (and may not even concord with the development process, say). It annoys me more when, as in Civ 5's case, this spills over into MP (with the caveat that this doesn't actually affect me - Civ 5's got to many problems in the core game for now, and multiplayer is actually broken).

Closer to an actual rip-off is Empire: Total War and Napoleon : Total War. Yes, I bought the former on the understanding that I was buying the game as-was and only on the hope that it would receive considerable attention to fix the myriad issues with it - I understand that my right to patches is limited, but nevertheless I bought it precisely to stimulate and enable such patching. So I was rather pissed off when the majority of the fixes actually ended up in a brand-new full-price game.

Treguard of Dunshelm

AFAIK you don't actually buy software itself, do you? You buy a licence to use it, the publisher still owns it. Though Zetetic's point about that not being made obvious to consumers is a good one.

It's annoying for me cos I got Crysis Warhead and the Orange box delivered at the weekend, but I can't play them till this weekend cos they need to be validated online and I've used up this month's data allowance. But that's partly my fault for being too lazy to get proper broadband installed.

Zetetic

Quote from: Treguard of Dunshelm on February 22, 2011, 10:59:14 AM
AFAIK you don't actually buy software itself, do you? You buy a licence to use it, the publisher still owns it. Though Zetetic's point about that not being made obvious to consumers is a good one.
This is the line that's pushed. It's also, obviously not how consumers conceive of their purchase of music CDs, film DVDs and games on physical media. You buy a copy of the music/film/game, but not the right to make copies (which is enforced by copyright, and no particular agreement between you and the publisher.)

I'm more prepared to accept the idea that I'm licensing media when I actually get something in return (such as repeatable downloadability), but even then in certain areas (music, books) I'm not prepared to accept technical attempts to enforce the license (particularly where those attempts tend to overstep the license's aims.)

It's interesting to note that book publishers take the same line, and have done so since before e-books. ('This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not be.. circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it was published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent publisher.' Broadly, a EULA.)

Anyway, thankfully on PC, these kinds of errors, including multiple pre-order exclusives for example, can generally be solved by 3rd party fixes.

Mister Six

Quote from: Zetetic on February 22, 2011, 10:40:54 AMWhile you're continuing to sell physical items (CDs and the like) as if they were the product, it's disingenuous and misleading to then have that physical product not act as the entirety of that the product.

That's neither the publishers' fault nor their responsibility, though. The publishers sell you the game first-hand. If you buy it second-hand you're buying it from Game, CEX or wherever. Though those shops should probably warn buyers that not all of the features are available in pre-owned copies.

QuoteOn a similar note, selling games and certain kinds of DLC/add-on content can seem very unpleasant (albeit not actually unethical in the manner of the OP's situation) to me. Examples of this include Dragon Age's Shale and Civ 5's civilisations.

The way to look at it is that Shale is a bonus for people buying the game new rather than something being taken from people who buy second-hand. And TBH I'd rather downloads followed the Shale route than, say, the Warden's Keep one - it's much more fun to have DLC that adds to the entire game than one that's almost entirely compartmentalised.

QuoteI understand that my right to patches is limited
See, I think one's right to patches is full and inalienable, even if that's not backed up by law. If I buy a washing machine, a car or a book I expect it to be in full working order. And if it is not, I expect to be given one that works. That's my right as a customer. As a badly programmed game cannot be swapped for a working one, repairs to the faults ought to be supplied as standard.

Does anyone know the legality of returning a video game that is as fucked pre-patch as, say, Fallout: NV?

Zetetic

Quote from: Mister Six on February 22, 2011, 11:34:58 AM
That's neither the publishers' fault nor their responsibility, though. The publishers sell you the game first-hand. If you buy it second-hand you're buying it from Game, CEX or wherever. Though those shops should probably warn buyers that not all of the features are available in pre-owned copies.
That's terribly charitable. It's their fault in so far as their previous behaviour (selling physical items as if they were the game) has at least reinforced this belief. Beyond that, it seems unlikely that they aren't at least partially banking on people's ignorance - they want people like FM to buy the game and only then discover the pop-up saying 'Would you like the rest that's missing?'

Zetetic

Quote from: Mister Six on February 22, 2011, 11:34:58 AM
Does anyone know the legality of returning a video game that is as fucked pre-patch as, say, Fallout: NV?
Presumably entirely dependent on whether you could argue that it wasn't "satisfactory quality as described" or some-such. However, this is likely to be affected by the wider public's idea of what quality of stability and performance you can expect from video games...

Treguard of Dunshelm

Quote from: Zetetic on February 22, 2011, 11:47:14 AM
That's terribly charitable. It's their fault in so far as their previous behaviour (selling physical items as if they were the game) has at least reinforced this belief.
They have to distribute the code somehow, no? Nowadays, you can use the net, but it wasn't so long ago that you had no choice but to buy the physical item. It's still more convenient for me to do so usually, for aforementioned shitty internet reasons.

jutl

We had a discussion of this before on one of the other gaming threads when this practice started. The point for me is that if the publishers are running servers for online play, then the 'sell one transferable licence' model doesn't really fit their expenditure. They're getting one fee for a continued chain of interest and use of their online infrastructure. If games were non-transferable, they could probably rely on the initial spurt of sales covering the initial surge of interest in playing the game online, and that demand falling off as the original owners lose interest. With second hand sales, each new recipient represents another surge of interest in online play, with no accompanying revenue to the publisher/developer to keep the servers running. So I can see a 'fairness' argument for online passes being single use products. I'm less convinced by things like the Cerberus Network for Mass Effect 2, which was essentially just a crappy newsfeed and some fairly poor DLC.

Still Not George

Another thing that needs pointing out is that apart from online download, none of us have ever actually bought a game from a game developer or publisher. You've bought them from retail game stores. The specifics of how you are sold hardcopy games is entirely up to the game store, with some caveats from the distributors. The publishers and developers of the game in the OP, for example, have made no attempt to hide the fact that online multiplayer is provided as a single-use element; however, the point-of-sale merchants have made no attempt at communicating that this specific copy of the product does not contain this element to you. You've been ripped off by GAME (or whoever), not by the devs/publishers.

Comparisons to books are misplaced at best and disingenuous at worst, as the media are inherently different, but if we were to make such a comparison, this sitation is a lot more like buying a second-hand "Learn Linux Now!" book that doesn't have the Ubuntu DVD at the back and blaming the publishers of the book. Or a book with a form to fill in at the back to get a free poster etc which has already been snipped.

In short: Caveat emptor, and try buying new copies of games during the frequent sales or using one of the dozens of other channels for getting cheap new copies of games. Or buy them online. Just don't go around pretending that it's some developer's fault when GAME rip you off.

HappyTree

I can see why games companies would include a code. To make more money. However, my view is that the consumer has a choice: buy the game new for full price as soon as it comes out, or wait and buy it new for a reduced price, or wait and buy it second-hand. Morally, I don't see what business it is of the games company what a buyer does with their copy of the product once they have bought it, as long as they don't make illegal copies of it. When you buy a game second-hand the original owner doesn't have it any more, so if they want to give it to someone else that's their choice. And if that giving is at a price then that is a private deal between buyer and seller.

Having said that, it's a good idea to look around online to see if anyone comments that there are codes that activate other stuff. It does seem a bit unfair to have to enter a code to receive online functionality, that's a big part of the game these days. Not one I participate in myself, but most other people tend to play online.

I bought ME2 new, but vastly reduced in price, because it came with codes. I might have bought it second-hand and paid for the DLC instead. Though in practice I bought my games from Amazon Marketplace and there you can get new, sealed games for the same price as the second-hand ones so there's no real benefit in avoiding a new game.

Now I live in Estonia I cannot get Amazon Marketplace, which is a bit of a pisser. So I just have to swallow the Amazon price, plus a hefty postage. Still, their prices are better than anywhere else.

Top tip: recreate that online experience by getting your little brother to shout insults at you as you play and grab at the controller to make you die suddenly through no fault of your own.

jutl

Quote from: HappyTree on February 22, 2011, 12:45:33 PM
I can see why games companies would include a code. To make more money.

...or to put it another way, to make enough money to carry on providing a side-service to the game.

QuoteMorally, I don't see what business it is of the games company what a buyer does with their copy of the product once they have bought it, as long as they don't make illegal copies of it.

Morally the copyright holders have the right to control copies of their intellectual property. The physical disc and packaging might be yours, but the IP is not, and the terms under which you can deal with that IP are part of the licence to which you agree. In practice games companies grudgingly allow second hand sales because it's impractical to stop it; it would involve taking legal action against what is currently their chief route to market - games stores (online or otherwise). That doesn't change the morality of the issue though, which is that copyright owners have rights which they can license as they choose.   

HappyTree

Yeah. It just feels wrong, but I suppose a publisher is allowed to release its game under the conditions it wants. If they put too many restrictions on it I'll just not buy it at all, or do without the extra features the codes/DLC would have provided. Guess I'm lucky I don't like playing online, they can curtail my online connectivity all they like.

Zetetic

#15
Quote from: Still Not George on February 22, 2011, 12:35:58 PM
Another thing that needs pointing out is that apart from online download, none of us have ever actually bought a game from a game developer or publisher. You've bought them from retail game stores. The specifics of how you are sold hardcopy games is entirely up to the game store, with some caveats from the distributors. The publishers and developers of the game in the OP, for example, have made no attempt to hide the fact that online multiplayer is provided as a single-use element; however, the point-of-sale merchants have made no attempt at communicating that this specific copy of the product does not contain this element to you. You've been ripped off by GAME (or whoever), not by the devs/publishers.
I appreciate that there's also a requirement (moral, ethical) upon the second-hand vendor. This doesn't excuse EA or any other publisher. Hot Pursuit is also a rather special case, it should be noted, and that's part of the reason why it's problematic. Almost any other Xbox 360 game will use Xbox Live for multiplayer support (which is, of course, supported via subscription to Microsoft), and so there's an even greater expectation that any game, second-hand or otherwise, won't suffer in this respect. It's an entirely reasonable expectation.

Of course, if we're really to believe that a license is being handed round, why can't they require that second-hand vendors make it clear at the point of purchase? Obviously unenforceable with private individuals, but one could at least tackle the issue on the high street. At the very least they could make it marginally more obvious than the small print on the back(, which also notes that at the purchase of code, there's only a guarantee of a month or so of the servers actually remaining up.)

I appreciate that console publishers do find themselves in something of a pickle - while they continue to sell discs as though they were games (which is what they're stuck with on consoles), if they want to do anything out-of-the-ordinary with online support they either have to swallow the possible cost of second-hand sales going online or they can do this. This doesn't excuse them from not making a greater effort to clarify to consumers what action they're taking.

QuoteOr a book with a form to fill in at the back to get a free poster etc which has already been snipped.
A better comparison, but it's hard to argue that Autolog, in the case of Hot Pursuit, is equivalent to a 'free poster' as regards a book. But, taking it as an analogue with less significant first-sale DLC is interesting, and I'll have to think about that a bit more.

QuoteIn short: Caveat emptor, and try buying new copies of games during the frequent sales or using one of the dozens of other channels for getting cheap new copies of games. Or buy them online.
Broadly I agree with this, as practical advice. 'Caveat emptor' though? Famous Mortimer's expectations are far from unreasonable and both the publisher and the seller could, and should, have done more to dispel them. It's a little cruel to claim otherwise.

QuoteJust don't go around pretending that it's some developer's fault when GAME rip you off.
Publishers could make it much more clear how much of the game is in your hand and how much isn't. GAME's at fault too, that doesn't mean EA isn't as well.

Frankly, I'll be happiest to see the second-hand market die and this issue with it. If we've really been buying licenses all along, it'll at least be preferable to have this made clear once and for all.

Zetetic

#16
Quote from: jutl on February 22, 2011, 12:58:07 PM
That doesn't change the morality of the issue though, which is that copyright owners have rights which they can license as they choose.
That's really the legality of the issue. And even there, you're broadly wrong in that many countries (at least those with English-derived legal systems) implement some kind of doctrine of exhaustion regarding the sale of physical items that express intellectual property (for what I hope are fairly obvious reasons).

That this has been suspended by broadly technical means, in a variety of cases, does muddy the water somewhat. More to the point (well, my point), that limitation of rights that copyright holders have traditionally been held to means that Famous Mortimer's expectations are all the more understandable.

To my mind, they're either selling a license - in which case they've got good grounds to take action so as to clarify what's included in a second-hand sale or not, by stipulating what sellers must do when they're selling the game second-hand. I don't believe for second that EA doesn't have enough clout such that a stipulation of this would actually lead to GAME refusing to stock their stuff.
Or they're doing what they've actually been doing for ages, like the vast majority of IP merchants, and selling a physical expression of copyrighted content. On this reading they're very much limited by the doctrine of exhaustion as to their legal abilities, and introducing technical measures to get around this seems deeply unpleasant (if utterly permissible) and leads to situations where individuals that have entirely reasonable expectations find themselves being 'ripped off'.

(I'll note that the EU actually favours a broadly opposing 'droit de suite' in some areas which appears superficially similar the issue at work (the right of EA to continue to extract money from second-hand sales) here, but really isn't (as it's ostensibly for the up-keep of servers).)

There are plenty of reasons to dislike the digitally-managed world of Steam and so on. But at least that's upfront, and isn't so saddled with the expectations wrought by our experience of the last few decades.

Still Not George

Quote from: Zetetic on February 22, 2011, 01:34:15 PMOf course, if we're really to believe that a license is being handed round, why can't they require that second-hand vendors make it clear at the point of purchase? Obviously unenforceable with private individuals, but one could at least tackle the issue on the high street.
Partly because if they had the capacity to do that then they could simply prevent second-hand game sales in the first place... but also, why the hell should they? The entire process of second-hand game sales takes them out of the picture entirely. It's not the responsibility of a game publisher - even a giant asshole one like EA or Activision - to ensure that GAME etc don't rip their customers off.

Put simply, if you're not paying the piper, the piper doesn't really need to give a shit about you. If people are willing to continue buying second hand games, then they will need to accept that this means that they will become second hand consumers.

Zetetic

Quote from: Still Not George on February 22, 2011, 01:52:03 PM
Partly because if they had the capacity to do that then they could simply prevent second-hand game sales in the first place... but also, why the hell should they?
Well, broadly because I'd like fewer people and corporations to act like 'giant asshole(s)'. They don't have to. I can't imagine that there should be a legal requirement or anything of that sort. But it'd be nice they did. They've implemented the system, they should consider being a little pleasant at least to their customers about it.

I would suggest that there is an incentive for them to consider helping these people at - many of them will consider buying EA games in the future, first-hand. However, giants that they are they don't need to worry about good-will of that kind. Which is shame, I would have thought.

jutl

Quote from: Zetetic on February 22, 2011, 01:41:54 PM
That's really the legality of the issue. And even there, you're broadly wrong in that many countries (at least those with English-derived legal systems) implement some kind of doctrine of exhaustion regarding the sale of physical items that express intellectual property (for what I hope are fairly obvious reasons).

(I'll note that the EU actually favours a broadly opposing 'droit de suite' in some areas which appears superficially similar the issue at work (the right of EA to continue to extract money from second-hand sales) here, but really isn't (as it's ostensibly for the up-keep of servers).)

Software publishers typically maintain that the terms of their EULA supercede exhaustion of rights, and even in the US, it's not as simple as you imply.

Zetetic

I understand the issue with software EULAs remains contentious (with, as your article points out an appeal decision overturning a previous decision against the power of EULAs to remove such rights as resale). Does this make FM's expectations any less reasonable? I'm not sure that it really does.

It perhaps does support SNG's claim that they're really different kinds of media to books (and films and music, noting that in each of those cases there are rights relating to public performance of course). At any rate, in such cases it's far from simple legally or ethically - whose rights and expectations should trump whose? Ultimately, there's a degree to which this is all (by which I mean home users and copyrighted items) likely to be disappeared by digital distribution before it's ever solved (bringing with it a whole new set of problems and hopefully one day sufficient consumer protection against them by the state, since I don't have a great deal of trust in the market to fully solve them).

(I do apologise for not giving more time to the fact that the issue of EULA vs. doctrine of exhaustion, in the States, is far from settled.)

Still Not George

Quote from: Zetetic on February 22, 2011, 02:00:26 PM
Well, broadly because I'd like fewer people and corporations to act like 'giant asshole(s)'. They don't have to. I can't imagine that there should be a legal requirement or anything of that sort. But it'd be nice they did. They've implemented the system, they should consider being a little pleasant at least to their customers about it.
They don't implement the system. The second-hand market is not their system, for starters, but even then there are multiple links in this chain. The distributors have vastly more influence over the retail world than publishers do; publishers just fund the project and collect the moolah (and interfere unnecessarily in development, of course).

But more to the point, there is little incentive for publishers to be nice to people who aren't paying them anything. They've already been nice to the person who bought the game in the first place.

QuoteI would suggest that there is an incentive for them to consider helping these people at - many of them will consider buying EA games in the future, first-hand. However, giants that they are they don't need to worry about good-will of that kind. Which is shame, I would have thought.
I'd suggest that general evidence seems to indicate that second-hand purchasers tend to remain second-hand purchasers. But it's difficult to know for sure, as the second-hand retailers don't release info on it. More to the point, there's not all that much brand loyalty in the games market for publishers. Games are typically bought due to either publicity, review, or prior engagement (sequels, licences, etc). I've never heard someone in GAME say "ooh, a new EA game, I should pick that up!"

Zetetic

Quote from: Still Not George on February 22, 2011, 02:20:14 PM
They don't implement the system.
EA implemented (or, rather, if you insist, demanded that it was implemented) the system that restricts Autolog to a single-use per first-sale.

QuoteBut more to the point, there is little incentive for publishers to be nice to people who aren't paying them anything. They've already been nice to the person who bought the game in the first place.
Well, yes.

QuoteI'd suggest that general evidence seems to indicate that second-hand purchasers tend to remain second-hand purchasers. But it's difficult to know for sure, as the second-hand retailers don't release info on it.
I'm ignorant here, but I'll have a look.

QuoteMore to the point, there's not all that much brand loyalty in the games market for publishers. Games are typically bought due to either publicity, review, or prior engagement (sequels, licences, etc).
Noting that prior engagement of the kind you note tends to correspond to publishers, but yes, broadly again I'd agree.

QuoteI've never heard someone in GAME say "ooh, a new EA game, I should pick that up!"
Precisely. So there really is no economic incentive for them to help out Famous Mortimer by ensuring he knows what buying the box entails and what it does not. I'm agreeing with this claim, and stating that it's a shame that this is the case. Famous Mortimer will probably buy EA games again, for example. (Indeed they have an incentive not to have FM know - this way he's more likely to buy the game second-hand and then the code.)

(Um, looking back, I realise that 'I would suggest...' might be misleading. I meant that I would but I can't.)

I don't think that this changes the fact that it's still unpleasant of EA to have changed what buying the pretty box with Hot Pursuit means and not giving a shit whether anyone knows this or not. It's unfair on FM. Similarly it would be unfair of GAME not to give a shit either.

When I say 'EA should do this', I simply mean that they do bear some responsibility for the situation arising, are in a position to help out FM, and it'd be a nicer world if they did. I maintain that FM's expectations are utterly reasonable, informed by considerable experience (experience which has in part derived from a legal basis) with a variety of media of an extended period of time. Sure, EA should be under no (legal) requirement to conform to these expectations forever more, but this doesn't free them from being gits for pulling the rug out from underneath them.

Still Not George

Quote from: Zetetic on February 22, 2011, 02:29:12 PM
EA implemented (or, rather, if you insist, demanded that it was implemented) the system that restricts Autolog to a single-use per first-sale.
No, they definitely implemented that system. But they don't implement the second-hand market's point-of-sale information. That's NOT their system, it's entirely beyond the control of any publisher. The retailer could have made clear what the limitations were; a friend of mine runs a second-hand game store called GamePark and I would be incredibly surprised if he'd sold someone Hot Pursuit without warning them that they'd be unable to use features. With our local GAME on the other hand, I'd have the opposite expectation. But none of this is EA's fault.

QuoteI'm ignorant here, but I'll have a look.
Almost by definition, second-hand buyers are cost-driven buyers. Cost-driven buyers don't develop brand loyalty except to cost-related brands (Lidl, Netto, etc). Basic marketing.

QuoteNoting that prior engagement of the kind you note tends to correspond to publishers, but yes, broadly again I'd agree.
But the engagement is with the individual brand, not the publisher. People don't buy Halo 3 because it's published by Microsoft, they buy it because it's Halo. And they sure as hell don't buy FIFA because it's EA. In fact the cases in which prior engagement has shifted between publishers would strongly support this, as it typically has no effect whatsoever on sales. Consumers really don't care who the publisher is, except in a few very notable cases, typically where the publisher and developer are the same company (Rockstar, Nintendo, etc).

QuoteI don't think that this changes the fact that it's still unpleasant of EA to have changed what buying the pretty box with Hot Pursuit means and not giving a shit whether anyone knows this or not. It's unfair on FM. Similarly it would be unfair of GAME not to give a shit either.
EA haven't changed what it means, GAME have. EA sell a specific product through a specific set of distribution channels. Holding them responsible for what happens outside those channels, however, seems a little absurd to me. It's like holding Sony responsible for the guy down the pub selling you a dodgy telly with a broken HDMI socket.

Still Not George

I do agree that EA are being cuntish about it, simply because it'd be the easiest thing in the world to sell online codes for a fiver or so. EA get a secondary revenue stream without any additional effort, their multiplayer servers get paid for, and second-hand stream purchasers get an option to get the full functionality. Everyone's happy, and anyone who isn't really is someone who expects something for nothing.

But EA aren't doing this, I can only assume because they're the kind of pricks who fill entire conference halls just with their PR knobheads.

What a weird situation - I've found myself defending publishers. Next I'll be saying that Nintendo are genuinely forward-thinking and that Kinect isn't a heap of overhyped shite.

Zetetic

Edit: ^! They do sell online codes. Which is fine, and the right thing to do. But they sell them for £10 a pop. Which to me, simply speaks of the true intention.

It's not to support the multiplayer servers (because the incremental cost of the servers and supporting the buying code system can't possibly come anywhere near that £10) it's entirely because they want to obliterate the doctrine of exhaustion by technical means, and more than that they wish to do so as quietly as they can so that individuals such as FM find themselves surprised. Hot Pursuit, to me, is an odd example to be working with, because at least EA are selling you an ongoing service in exchange for monetizing second-hand sales.

Perhaps you'll think that I expect something for nothing for making that distinction. I fundamentally don't have a problem with them turning a profit on second-hand sales in this way and in this case. But I see them as greedy, and that it really would be nice if they would at least try to help out people like FM, rather than hoping to, broadly, trick them.

Quote from: Still Not George on February 22, 2011, 02:44:23 PM
People don't buy Halo 3 because it's published by Microsoft, they buy it because it's Halo.
Or Hot Pursuit because its NFS, or Burnout (which they push on the packaging), sure. But often franchises do remain with publishers - so if this issue did affect the likelihood of someone buying an NFS game first-hand in the future, it'd most likely affect EA. But as you say (and I agree), it most probably won't. I agree that EA won't be economically incentivised in this case to do the nice thing.

QuoteEA haven't changed what it means, GAME have. EA sell a specific product through a specific set of distribution channels. Holding them responsible for what happens outside those channels, however, seems a little absurd to me. It's like holding Sony responsible for the guy down the pub selling you a dodgy telly with a broken HDMI socket.
Only if Sony had implemented a scheme by which HDMI sockets break upon second-hand sale in order to engage second-hand buyers in their HDMI-socket-repair program. I am honestly surprised that you can't see any culpability on EA's part for FM's surprise at finding out that that he'd bought half the product.

MojoJojo

Just a bit of anecdotal, I was somewhat surprised to hear the workmen replacing the lift at work discussing how EA were a bunch of cunts, and how one of them almost accidently bought a game from EA before he realised the content was going to be locked out.
I was surpised because I'm a snob and hadn't really expected them to be that up on which publishers are doing what.
But it does suggest the publishers aren't immune to it.

My own view is that the second hand market has a hugely distorting effect on the whole game market. The games have to be sold in the first week - there is no long tail, or even a stump. So huge amounts of hype building up to release.
Games with less than a very broad appeal just aren't sold, because of this - by the time word of mouth lets people know what to expect, there are second hand games on the shelves and the publisher/developer get nothing.
It also means publishers have no real incentive to compete on price - anyone who is worried about price will go second-hand, so why bother?

Zetetic

Quote from: MojoJojo on February 22, 2011, 03:17:42 PM
My own view is that the second hand market has a hugely distorting effect on the whole game market. The games have to be sold in the first week - there is no long tail, or even a stump. So huge amounts of hype building up to release.
Games with less than a very broad appeal just aren't sold, because of this - by the time word of mouth lets people know what to expect, there are second hand games on the shelves and the publisher/developer get nothing.
I presume that this isn't true so much on the PC, and with smaller devs/publishers (and my viewpoint might be distorted by only considering the lucky cases), but it's an interesting point.

Still Not George

Quote from: Zetetic on February 22, 2011, 03:30:00 PM
I presume that this isn't true so much on the PC, and with smaller devs/publishers (and my viewpoint might be distorted by only considering the lucky cases), but it's an interesting point.
The PC's traditional game sales channel no longer really exists, so things that affect that channel aren't there any more. And smaller devs in particular are the worst affected, as most publishers will not take any risk whatsoever on mid-range products. Don't let Minecraft selection bias fool you; investment only comes to new ideas if they're already the subject of massive hype. Pitching is virtually pointless these days.

Zetetic

I was more thinking of self-publishing guys like Frictional Games and so forth that make enough, rather than the runaway successes like Minecraft, but, yes, you're right that selection bias is probably entirely distorting my view of these things. I imagine that the market's not got an awful lot of room.

I'm unsurprised to hear that pitching's practically worthless these days, but I hadn't considered how this pretty much limits truly independent development to those that already have a sufficient amount of cash in the bank (from whatever previous work).