Quick Jump Daily Digest
Thank you for your interest in the Quick Jump Daily Digest. Get notified of all new content on QJ in our free Daily Digest. To subscribe, enter your email address below and click the subscribe button.
THQ wants to keep gamers from trading in their games |
Listed in: News Tags: news, THQ
Video game publishers and developers normally don't make any money on used game sales. These sales account for a huge part of retail revenues, however, so some publishers have introduced a system of one-time use codes that allow access to online play. Electronic Arts has the Online Pass. THQ introduced their own version of it in UFC Undisputed 2010.
THQ CEO Brian Farrell recently told MCV that the point of their system is to make some money on used games, not kill the used games market entirely. Ultimately, however, the publisher's goal is to keep gamers from trading in their games at all.
"The most important thing is we have to participate in the value chain in used games," he said. "We understand, given our focus on the gamer, that consumers like to be able to monetise their game library. So it is an ecosystem between publisher, gamer and retailer that just has to sort itself out.
"Part of it is monetising but the bigger win is keeping our gamers engaged with DLC and robust online play, and that keeps the disc in the first purchaser's hands."
Via [MCV]
| 12.5% of voters think this story ROCKS! |
|
|
Comments
Reply
Your answer to this is to lock us in cages? Go to hell, THQ.
Reply
A great point though. Series shouldn't always be looking to improve, but should look to continue the story to make the older games more significant instead of just a last season game.
Reply
Reply
Used games are for the person who likely doesn't have a large income to spend the latest games.
And also for the people who are hard-up for some cash, so they trade their games in.
I trade my shit in at the local pawn shop, interesting I know but they usually give me $5-20 depending on the condition.
Better than store credit at Gamestop.
Reply
Its just the right thing to do.
;)
Reply
Those one-time codes piss me the hell off, especially when it's a code for something extremely valuable or great to have in-game. Devs just can't face the facts their games last about 15 hours and then become boring immediately following. You want consumers to keep your games instead of trading them in: make better games with better replay value, not an epic story that last about a day and is focused on visuals, that kills the fun factor. Make a game that isn't dumped off in 6 months when a new title is announced, actually work on the damn thing and release worthwhile DLC for it if you need to! Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood could've very well been DLC from Assassin's Creed 2, but instead they make an entirely new game people trade in AC2 for, then get pissed they're not making sales for the traded-in now-fossil game.
Also, the costs of games also play a factor in trades. Some have no choice but to trade in some of their old games they don't much of anymore to buy the new $60/$70 game that stays at such a price for months to come (unless the game is a fail, then it gets lowered to $40). Used sales on new games aren't really too swell either, you usually save about $5 anyways and whole the hell wants pre-owned "new" games with no codes because the devs don't enjoy handing out free DLC online or even including it in their game in the first place??
Ubisoft's UPlay isn't a bad idea at all. You play the game, unlock certain achievements or trophies, gain UPlay points base don that trophy/achievement, and redeem them for game unlockables that spand the brand. Genius and it shits on the current DLC idea of paying $10 for 3 maps you can't do shit on except play a 5-minute matchup on.
Reply
Especially for me because I could care less about online play. People are assholes and I like playing for fun, not for competition and increasing my gamerscore.
The next and last game I'll ever play online will most likely be Battlefield 3, until the hackers and assholes ruin that one too.
Reply
it just goes to show there greed or maybe there desperate for money. anyway bottom line these guys should take a page from other developers if you cant make the sequel different from its predecessor then make it somehow that those hours you put on another game isnt wasted and can be uploaded into the sequel little big planet is one pure example but most of the other sequels were different which made it worth keeping but you got to face these guys probably arent capable of creating games
that is worth keeping for decades like zelda and ff series although some ff games did suck but you get where im coming from.
BOTTOM LINE MAKE GAMES THAT ARE WORTH KEEPING THQ. your also guilty of the same thing activision and ea
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Online fps=popular=money=greed=more online fps=more money=more of the same games trying to play copycat wanting to cash in on the fps money tree.
I saw things changing back in 06 or so and decided I didnt want to be part of it,I wound up buying an uber slow,yet capable pc at a yard sale and went on my merry little way playing old school pc games.I just couldnt stand all the attention that online games were getting(namely halo),I didnt like the change.I wasnt impressed with gtaIV much at all,then splinter cell changed(favorit e game),then the ever so popular dead rising(Zombies, WTF?),then Call of duty(Again,zomb ies(and endless respawning ememies).Oh and lets not forget about the new shellshock game.The first shellshock was one of those unique games imo but guess what?Yeah,it has effing zombies this time around.
Anybody remember Psi-Ops,Commandos,w hat used to be splinter cell,onimusha,t he great escape,ATV offroad Fury(4),rez?What happened to games like that?
Reply
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7831130/ufc_undisputed_2011_gameplay_and_modes.html?cat=19
Reply