Used Games

Have you ever bought or sold a game that's second hand? Have you borrowed traded games with friends before? Have you copied a friend's game so you can keep a copy of it? Well, apparently, the 'used game market' is as bad as piracy to game developers and publishers. And they are probably right. While most of the examples I stated aren't exactly a market, it is quite common to find a used game section in a local game store. This is where they sell games that people have played and sold back to them at a low price. The games are then sold, cheaper than new games, but otherwise almost no different. (That is, unless the game have one of these new 'anti-used-game-sale-protection' in place, like requiring an online pass to activate certain portions of the game.) Needless to say, it is generally the single-player games that get this treatment, or bad games, or those with multi-player components that no one cares about.

Why are the publishers so concerned? Well, for one, they don't get anything out of games sold this way. And two, people won't but the new game, so they lose out on a sale as well. The only ones making money are the store owners, and of course, that's not ok with that, and that's perfectly understandable. So, like DRM, measures were taken to get a cut out of these sales. Parts of games were locked, requiring a one-use activation key that came with the game, but people could still unlock them by buying the key online, thus giving the publishers a cut. Per-orders came with bonuses to encourage people to pre-order (that caused problems as well when different stores get different bonuses and so, no matter where you buy, you're getting an incomplete product.) planning DLC release schedules to encourage people to keep the game (good, but DLCs cost more money.) And recently, there's news that the new Playstation and Xbox will not support used games and the PS Vita makes it so that only the first player of the game get achievements, though there seems to be a workaround.

While I understand why they need to do this, and feel that having the online pass and DLC is acceptable, totally blocking the ability to play used games is going too far. There are people, students especially, that can't afford to buy too many new games considering how expensive games can be. Used games lets them have a chance to play more games, even if some parts of them are locked out. People who sell the games they finished can now also have the extra cash to buy more games, though publishers probably won't buy this argument because they can't be sure if the new game will be one of theirs. Blocking out used games can be a stupid move, because it means now people who can't afford games will resort to piracy if they are desperate enough. It would be hilarious if either one of Sony or Microsoft went ahead with this move but not the other. Gamers would then all flock to the one which didn't, and game publishers would still be forced to make games for that because that's where all the people who would buy games are.

Instead of something so drastic, developers should work to make it worthwhile,for gamers to keep their games. Blizzard provides good support for their games, even Diablo and Starcraft 1 are still playable online, and Starcraft 2 is constantly patched and receiving new maps. The Witcher and The Witcher 2 (hate to have to keep praising this company, but they seem to be doing everything right) pack their game with a lot of extras - maps, music, even a short novel, and all their updates and added content are free. Perhaps if the game is good enough, and there are reasons to buy it new or keep the game, used game sales will not be such a big issue? Just like piracy, it'll be difficult to control used game sales, but unlike piracy, it is really not clear here who is wrong or right, or whether it should or should not be allowed.

I believe an online pass, plus making games worth keeping could be an effective way to manage it, and if people are unable to afford new games all the time, give them a chance to play some games.