By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Elder Scrolls Online Xbox One/PS4 Locks Out People Who Buy Used or Rent

Dusk on 15 May 2015
SlayerRondo said:
Dusk said:
SlayerRondo said:
Dusk said:

This has been a semi normal practice for a while now with MMO's. At least some. There has been a few different ways it has been handled. 1 is that a game is only shipped with a few codes to play, so it could be sold to another and an unused code could be used (they are tied to the installation disc). In others when a new computer attempts to log in there is an initial fee like 20 bucks that need to be paid in order to log on. And it's reasons like this that the free to play model started as well. Then it doesn't matter who plays the game if they want to progress in the game it pretty much becomes essential to purchase things through the ingame shop with a form of payment. 

I still think that as long as you need the disc to play the game then second hand sales are not really an issue Bethesda need to tackle. Bethesda could stand out by allowing gamers to see some value out of the game when their done with it an maybe a cheaper second hand copy will entice someone else into playing the game and purchasing additional content in the future.


I get what you are saying, but logistically if you are creating something and putting it up for sale would you not prefer to have the sale dirctly from you, or would you prefer it be sold through another party entirely where you get nothing in reture for something you made? 

Likely the best way they could let someone see the value of what they have created is to put out a timed demo like so many other MMO's do. 

I haven't played this btw, I have little interest in it after I saw videos of it. I was interested at one point, but all my experience with MMO's has somewhat soured me on them a bit. They are usually far too shallow for my liking. 

I agree that, if I were selling something, I would rather all sales would be new, but if I purchase a hard copy of a game then I believe it's my right to sell that copy when I am done. Seller's may institute anti consumer practices and feel like they have the right, but to consumers it's a shitty practice that they wont support them. Simply making used copies of your game not exist will only ensure that less people play it and the value of your game drops.

Just because developers want to do an anti consumer practice does not mean they can or should be able to do so cost free.

Microsoft went through the same thing with the Xbox One when they tried to essentially kill used games and consumers would not tollerate it and Microsoft backtracked because the cost of forcing used games out outweighed the benefits.


Well sort of. I mean MS kinda backed off, but it's undeniable that the X1 has been moving towards that more anyway, plus many third parties are doing the same thing anyway. Basically consumers freaked when MS announced they were going to do it, but have sat back and watched it happen as thirds picked up right where MS left off. The only thing that will likely chance a thrid party from doing it is if there is a real boycott for a game where the majority of gamers actually group up and stick by the boycott then make it a very public and direct vocalization toward said third party that the practices aren't welcome. The same thing is happening on the PS4 as well, but again mostly by third parties. Obviously some are more attention grabbing than others.

I honestly don't see an issue with this anyway. Of course I buy most of my games brand new. I have ran into a couple issues here and there with used games not working, or not being able to get past a point due to a read error or whatever. But I'm a firm supporter of gaming, so I like to actually support games. 



Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.

Around the Network
sabvre42 on 15 May 2015
Ruler said:
sabvre42 said:

I was never a fan of the XB1, but I agree with killing used games - especially ones like this case.

There is no subscription, but the game is entirely online. If they allowed used copies to work, they would bankrupt themselves.

They have a projected cost (estimated play time) per player which could not be controlled if unlimited resales were possible. In a period of 5 years, the single game could be resold 2-12+ times. That's both server space and guaranteed service for all those people that contributed NOTHING for the said service.

Additionally, the price is going to drop. How can they justify unlimited server time to an unknown number of players for unknown number of years for 10-30.

lets kill used cars and microwaves too, they are hurting sales as well. Poor cooperations

Yeah because its the same thing right? Because you buy a used car and then go on the internet and whine about how Ford/Honda/Toyota/etc doesn't support the car - and give you free upgrades? (i'm ignoring your microwave example; because who the hell buys used microwaves?)

FYI - a new car comes with VERY high profit margins. If a car is sold AT dealer cost, the OEM still gets a very sizeable profit. Then used cars also require maintence and parts -- which continue to provide income to the OEM.

Also note, a video game depreciates in MSRP -- extremely rapidly. A video game is only sold at full retail price for a few weeks. Within 3 months, its very common to find the game on sale for 50 or 75% of retail, and at one year for as little as 33% of retail (less on Steam). Are you seriously trying to compare spending $19.99 (if you wait) - $59.99 (brand new at launch) to spending $15-45K ?

Spending $5-15 less to get a used copy of a video game simply steals revenue from the developer. You are obviously willing to pay for the game; you are just too cheap to spend full price. With the depreciation in video game value, you could simply wait a few weeks and purchase for the same price.



SlayerRondo on 15 May 2015
Dusk said:
SlayerRondo said:
Dusk said:
SlayerRondo said:
Dusk said:

This has been a semi normal practice for a while now with MMO's. At least some. There has been a few different ways it has been handled. 1 is that a game is only shipped with a few codes to play, so it could be sold to another and an unused code could be used (they are tied to the installation disc). In others when a new computer attempts to log in there is an initial fee like 20 bucks that need to be paid in order to log on. And it's reasons like this that the free to play model started as well. Then it doesn't matter who plays the game if they want to progress in the game it pretty much becomes essential to purchase things through the ingame shop with a form of payment. 

I still think that as long as you need the disc to play the game then second hand sales are not really an issue Bethesda need to tackle. Bethesda could stand out by allowing gamers to see some value out of the game when their done with it an maybe a cheaper second hand copy will entice someone else into playing the game and purchasing additional content in the future.


I get what you are saying, but logistically if you are creating something and putting it up for sale would you not prefer to have the sale dirctly from you, or would you prefer it be sold through another party entirely where you get nothing in reture for something you made? 

Likely the best way they could let someone see the value of what they have created is to put out a timed demo like so many other MMO's do. 

I haven't played this btw, I have little interest in it after I saw videos of it. I was interested at one point, but all my experience with MMO's has somewhat soured me on them a bit. They are usually far too shallow for my liking. 

I agree that, if I were selling something, I would rather all sales would be new, but if I purchase a hard copy of a game then I believe it's my right to sell that copy when I am done. Seller's may institute anti consumer practices and feel like they have the right, but to consumers it's a shitty practice that they wont support them. Simply making used copies of your game not exist will only ensure that less people play it and the value of your game drops.

Just because developers want to do an anti consumer practice does not mean they can or should be able to do so cost free.

Microsoft went through the same thing with the Xbox One when they tried to essentially kill used games and consumers would not tollerate it and Microsoft backtracked because the cost of forcing used games out outweighed the benefits.


Well sort of. I mean MS kinda backed off, but it's undeniable that the X1 has been moving towards that more anyway, plus many third parties are doing the same thing anyway. Basically consumers freaked when MS announced they were going to do it, but have sat back and watched it happen as thirds picked up right where MS left off. The only thing that will likely chance a thrid party from doing it is if there is a real boycott for a game where the majority of gamers actually group up and stick by the boycott then make it a very public and direct vocalization toward said third party that the practices aren't welcome. The same thing is happening on the PS4 as well, but again mostly by third parties. Obviously some are more attention grabbing than others.

I honestly don't see an issue with this anyway. Of course I buy most of my games brand new. I have ran into a couple issues here and there with used games not working, or not being able to get past a point due to a read error or whatever. But I'm a firm supporter of gaming, so I like to actually support games. 

I have not bought a second hand game in over two years and I also like to support the developers.

But developers should also want to support their audience by selling their games to them and not leasing them.



This is the Game of Thrones

Where you either win

or you DIE

SuaveSocialist on 15 May 2015

Shouldn't they be trying to think up new ways to get people to buy the game? Drawing lines in the sand does more to push customers away than attract them to a product.



Dusk on 16 May 2015
SlayerRondo said:
Dusk said:
SlayerRondo said:
Dusk said:
SlayerRondo said:
Dusk said:

This has been a semi normal practice for a while now with MMO's. At least some. There has been a few different ways it has been handled. 1 is that a game is only shipped with a few codes to play, so it could be sold to another and an unused code could be used (they are tied to the installation disc). In others when a new computer attempts to log in there is an initial fee like 20 bucks that need to be paid in order to log on. And it's reasons like this that the free to play model started as well. Then it doesn't matter who plays the game if they want to progress in the game it pretty much becomes essential to purchase things through the ingame shop with a form of payment. 

I still think that as long as you need the disc to play the game then second hand sales are not really an issue Bethesda need to tackle. Bethesda could stand out by allowing gamers to see some value out of the game when their done with it an maybe a cheaper second hand copy will entice someone else into playing the game and purchasing additional content in the future.


I get what you are saying, but logistically if you are creating something and putting it up for sale would you not prefer to have the sale dirctly from you, or would you prefer it be sold through another party entirely where you get nothing in reture for something you made? 

Likely the best way they could let someone see the value of what they have created is to put out a timed demo like so many other MMO's do. 

I haven't played this btw, I have little interest in it after I saw videos of it. I was interested at one point, but all my experience with MMO's has somewhat soured me on them a bit. They are usually far too shallow for my liking. 

I agree that, if I were selling something, I would rather all sales would be new, but if I purchase a hard copy of a game then I believe it's my right to sell that copy when I am done. Seller's may institute anti consumer practices and feel like they have the right, but to consumers it's a shitty practice that they wont support them. Simply making used copies of your game not exist will only ensure that less people play it and the value of your game drops.

Just because developers want to do an anti consumer practice does not mean they can or should be able to do so cost free.

Microsoft went through the same thing with the Xbox One when they tried to essentially kill used games and consumers would not tollerate it and Microsoft backtracked because the cost of forcing used games out outweighed the benefits.


Well sort of. I mean MS kinda backed off, but it's undeniable that the X1 has been moving towards that more anyway, plus many third parties are doing the same thing anyway. Basically consumers freaked when MS announced they were going to do it, but have sat back and watched it happen as thirds picked up right where MS left off. The only thing that will likely chance a thrid party from doing it is if there is a real boycott for a game where the majority of gamers actually group up and stick by the boycott then make it a very public and direct vocalization toward said third party that the practices aren't welcome. The same thing is happening on the PS4 as well, but again mostly by third parties. Obviously some are more attention grabbing than others.

I honestly don't see an issue with this anyway. Of course I buy most of my games brand new. I have ran into a couple issues here and there with used games not working, or not being able to get past a point due to a read error or whatever. But I'm a firm supporter of gaming, so I like to actually support games. 

I have not bought a second hand game in over two years and I also like to support the developers.

But developers should also want to support their audience by selling their games to them and not leasing them.


I completely agree. 



Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.

Around the Network
generic-user-1 on 16 May 2015
zero129 said:
sabvre42 said:
JayWood2010 said:

For the record i dont agree with used game sells when used games are being sold only a day old

Pretty much this. When gamestop resells a new game for 5-10 less than new retail... it's an industry that hurts the developers.

 

Unlike the whole piracy argument, those consumers do eventually pay for and buy the game. They just cheap out and screw over the developers to save a few bucks.

But!, are yet still no better then pirates... since the developer never sees a cent of that, only from the original buyer. Pretty much imo the exact same with piracy..

yes, secound hand is like piracy...    

and you can get autism from vaccination.

and obama was born in kenia.

and corporations are people.



sabvre42 on 16 May 2015
generic-user-1 said:
zero129 said:
sabvre42 said:

Pretty much this. When gamestop resells a new game for 5-10 less than new retail... it's an industry that hurts the developers.

 

Unlike the whole piracy argument, those consumers do eventually pay for and buy the game. They just cheap out and screw over the developers to save a few bucks.

But!, are yet still no better then pirates... since the developer never sees a cent of that, only from the original buyer. Pretty much imo the exact same with piracy..

yes, secound hand is like piracy...    

and you can get autism from vaccination.

and obama was born in kenia.

and corporations are people.

Arguably, used games are worse than piracy for the developers. 

As I said earlier,  the consumer is obviously willing to pay SOMETHING for the game. They just decide to cheap out and spend a few less dollars to get the used copy and feed the abomination that is gamestop, ebgames, etc.



generic-user-1 on 16 May 2015
sabvre42 said:
generic-user-1 said:
zero129 said:
sabvre42 said:

Pretty much this. When gamestop resells a new game for 5-10 less than new retail... it's an industry that hurts the developers.

 

Unlike the whole piracy argument, those consumers do eventually pay for and buy the game. They just cheap out and screw over the developers to save a few bucks.

But!, are yet still no better then pirates... since the developer never sees a cent of that, only from the original buyer. Pretty much imo the exact same with piracy..

yes, secound hand is like piracy...    

and you can get autism from vaccination.

and obama was born in kenia.

and corporations are people.

Arguably, used games are worse than piracy for the developers. 

As I said earlier,  the consumer is obviously willing to pay SOMETHING for the game. They just decide to cheap out and spend a few less dollars to get the used copy and feed the abomination that is gamestop, ebgames, etc.

yes, im stealing from the poor mega corp EA and all of their shareholders if i buy a used game.  its not like they made a game thats so bad you want to sell it after some days...



ROBOTECHHEAVEN on 16 May 2015

I dont know why people are making a big deal about this at all, because square-enix did the same thing with final fantasy 11 online when it launched as well. And it did not hurt them at all in terms of sales, since the game is their most profitable game ever. Case Closed.......



GAMERTAG IS ANIMEHEAVEN X23

PSN ID IS : ANIMEREALM 

PROUD MEMBER OF THE RPG FAN CLUB THREAD

ALL-TIME FAVORITE JRPG IS : LOST ODYSSEY

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=52882&page=1

sabvre42 on 16 May 2015
generic-user-1 said:
sabvre42 said:
generic-user-1 said:

yes, secound hand is like piracy...    

and you can get autism from vaccination.

and obama was born in kenia.

and corporations are people.

Arguably, used games are worse than piracy for the developers. 

As I said earlier,  the consumer is obviously willing to pay SOMETHING for the game. They just decide to cheap out and spend a few less dollars to get the used copy and feed the abomination that is gamestop, ebgames, etc.

yes, im stealing from the poor mega corp EA and all of their shareholders if i buy a used game.  its not like they made a game thats so bad you want to sell it after some days...

Be a smart consumer then. Wait for sales, pricedrops, and/or reviews.

Used games are the primary reason for the advent of day 1 (and soon after) DLC. Developers/publishers attempted to counter used game sales by implementing the online pass, but people like you bitched and moaned about having to contribute $5-10 to the actual workers that made the game. The online pass actually made sense -- it allowed each and every purchaser to contribute SOMETHING towards the online infrastructre of the game. Sony now handles it (Microsoft already did this all of gen 7) outside of the game via network subs.

You truely do NOT undertand economics if you cannot see how used game sales are a bane on all of gaming. Steam demonstrates how PC games can be sold on frequent and cheap sales -- BECAUSE each and every purchaser contributes SOMETHING to the development cost.