Today, I was in my local gaming store. I overheard a young lad asking the shop assistant for a copy of Battlefield 3 for Microsoft's Xbox 360. He was asked if he would like a new copy of the game or a secondhand one; the secondhand copy was £10 cheaper than the original. Obviously he opted for the cheaper option... he was told that he would have to purchase an online passcode in order to play via Xbox Live. He grumbled about this as he made his purchase.
I've always thought games developers are well within their rights to try and make money from secondhand games, considering how much work goes into developing modern games. I think this is especially important in the current economic climate. However as I was driving home I passed a number of car sales garages.
I'm pretty sure second-hand cars have been sold for many years. I don't think that purchasers of these used vehicles, myself included, have had to pay the original manufacturers any money to have the engine start, the wheels to turn or for it to be driven out of the county. You can also buy many other secondhand goods with no contribution to whoever made them in the first place.
This led me to the question: should the gaming industry be allowed to charge for features in the original product just because you choose to buy used? What makes the gaming industry different from others?
I'm pretty sure second-hand cars have been sold for many years. I don't think that purchasers of these used vehicles, myself included, have had to pay the original manufacturers any money to have the engine start, the wheels to turn or for it to be driven out of the county. You can also buy many other secondhand goods with no contribution to whoever made them in the first place.
This led me to the question: should the gaming industry be allowed to charge for features in the original product just because you choose to buy used? What makes the gaming industry different from others?
First off, developers have to pay for servers to run online games, which costs money. Three or four people could potentially play the same copy of Battlefield 3 (for example) online, but without the online pass system DICE would only get the cash from one of them.
Once you drive away in a second-hand car, it doesn't cost the original manufacturer a penny. In fact, they'll still make money from you when you buy new parts for your second-hand car. We're not totally behind the 'Online Passcode' system, but can see the sense behind it if the game in question justifies the expense.
Once you drive away in a second-hand car, it doesn't cost the original manufacturer a penny. In fact, they'll still make money from you when you buy new parts for your second-hand car. We're not totally behind the 'Online Passcode' system, but can see the sense behind it if the game in question justifies the expense.
XBW hit the nail on the head, there's a strong argument to be made for having to charge so sustain servers for multiplayer games. The problem arises when single-player games start using online passes, but so far we can't think up any examples of significant content being locked away behind online passes, it's all bonus DLC. So we're alright with it for now...
Article published by: Ross
Information gathered from: Source