THQ: We won't punish used game buyers

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 24 August, 2010

Is "trying to make it work for everybody".

Publisher THQ has promised not to "punish" gamers who buy second hand games.

THQ has come in for a bit of stick after creative director for wrestling titles Cory Ledesma said he didn't care if the Online Pass, as it's called, upset gamers.

Upcoming wrestling game SmackDown vs. Raw 2011 will come with a single use code printed on the back of the manual which will unlock the game's online features and provide a DLC pack for free.

"I don't think we really care whether used game buyers are upset because new game buyers get everything. So if used game buyers are upset they don't get the online feature set I don't really have much sympathy for them," Ledesma told CVG.

However, core games boss Danny Bilson told Eurogamer the Dawn of War and Homefront developer wants to make all gamers happy.

"What I care about the most is building great games people are excited to buy," Bilson said.

"If all of that revenue is going outside of the people who are making the games, it's really tough for us to fund them It's that simple.

"But we also don't want to punish the used gamer.

"So one of the things you're going to see us do, in addition to what is called the online lockout, which sounds a little punishing, is we're also going to be giving some downloadable content with that card.

"For instance, on our next WWE title, if you buy it used and there's a $10 fee to unlock all the online. It also unlocks the first DLC pack. So the used consumer feels they're getting something for their money, not just a getting out of jail card.

"We're trying to make it positive. But really what we have to be concerned with is new is premium, used is used. We've got to build our software to demonstrate that."

Bilson said that the "online lockout", as he calls it, is designed to ensure THQ can continue to build big budget games.

"It's a serious issue for us, because I want to make thirty, forty, fifty million dollar games that are awesome, but if I'm not making the money on them, I can't," he said.

"And then what happens? Then it gets really squishy.

"It's simple and difficult. But at the same time, we don't want to punish our consumers, either. So we're trying to figure out how to give those used guys something for their money, not just unlock the lockout.

"I'm trying to make it work for everybody, so we have a happy consumer base whether they're buying used or new.

"They are who I care about, the game fans. I just want to be able to service all of them in a good way, yet have enough money to make the games they want to play and I want to play."

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (47) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • MiniAmin #1 2 years ago

    I don't think we really care whether used game buyers are upset because new game buyers get everything.

    He speaks as if they're two separate, mystical, warring sects. Many new game buyers are only in that position because they've traded in their old titles. To artificially fragment the market by speaking in these bilateral terms is naive and unnecessary.

  • riceNpea #2 2 years ago

    of course all games designers and publishers have to do is to make a quality product that people won't want to be rid of weeks after purchase to solve this problem.

    and why discourage people from trying your back catalogue by penalising them when the buy a year old or so game second hand? it doesn't exactly encourage brand loyalty.

    Kudos THQ

  • iamian #3 2 years ago

    @riceNpea
    and why discourage people from trying your back catalogue

    Exactly, if you buy and enjoy a pre-owned game then it makes sense that you're then more likely to buy any next instalment/ip from the same publisher when it comes out. Not sure about 'Kudos THQ' though. Sounded a bit like an attempted recovery after the other fella decided to shoot his mouth off against people that buy pre owned...
    Edited by 1 at 24/08/10 @ 11:57

  • enfilade #4 2 years ago

    @riceNpea To be fair, the number of games that are much more than a year old and still cost anything close to even Ł20 is incredibly slim. Even games like Mass Effect 2 and Uncharted 2 can be bought for tuppence-ha'penny these days, so buying them used saves you little more than enough for half a pint at your local. I'd hardly say THQ are punishing gamers trying to use their back-catalogue.

    That said, I totally agree with your first comment. Good games tend to stay at full price for longer, too (Red Dead Redemption, anyone) meaning that manufacturers maximise their profits best when they simply make games worthy of the cash. Is yet another RAW vs Smackdown installment worth Ł40? Unlikely, I'd say. Darksiders 2, now that's a different proposition entirely...
    Edited by 1 at 24/08/10 @ 12:01

  • Nighthawk_08 #5 2 years ago

    I ain't got too much beef with this. If I knew that "game" or "gamestation" were the only ones profiting every time I bought a used game I'd always buy brand new. For the simple reason that games have been a massive part of my life, and I fucking love them. So I'd rather the studios that make the game see the money. Not the fuckers who ream my ass every time I trade a game in

  • billythekid #6 2 years ago

    Be nice if the online actually worked. I'm looking at you UFC 2010 >:(

  • IkariW #7 2 years ago

    Seems to be games with really decent on-line multiplayer that hold their price well, MW2, RDR, BFBC2 etc.
    If you keep people playing, you stop them trading.

    Ikari

  • Phily50 #8 2 years ago

    If it really HAS to be done, then this is a nice way of punishing those that buy used games...

  • jambii267 #9 2 years ago

    Sell the code to the game retailers so they can include the code with the used game, problem solved.

    Edit: Bad spelling. grammer and double post.
    Edited by 1 at 24/08/10 @ 13:27

  • Shikasama #10 2 years ago

    Drop the price of new games, sell more units.

    It really is that simple.

  • butler` #11 2 years ago

    Shikasama - but the retailers still want their margin, so to drop the retail price point significantly you have to alter the wholesale price and in turn squish the publisher and developer revenues.

    The games market is very price sensitive; you can bet your ass they're at the Ł40 RRP for a reason.

    Fuck, I have no idea why everyone is so wound up when bricks and mortar retail will be gone in 5 years.
    Edited by 1 at 24/08/10 @ 12:47

  • Xboxfanuk #12 2 years ago

    Digital will end all of this used buying. Fact is that games are becoming a service, not a product. This has been the case for all software in general for years. When you take away physical media you soon realise games are not like cars...they are an entertainment service that you are paying a third party instead of it's content creators and financiers. It would be like scalping tickets outside the theatre.

    Media retailers are a dying breed and rather then expand their service, offer compelling reasons to go to their shops you will continue to see them fall into administration. By next generation we will probably be looking at some consoles be all digital, it works for the iPhone.

  • Cronan #13 2 years ago

    Is there actually anyone here other than a few mustachioed Z3-driving men and their hairdresser friends that cares about any of these crappy THQ games?
    Edited by 1 at 24/08/10 @ 12:50

  • iamian #14 2 years ago

    Sell the code to the used game retailers to include the code with the used game, problem sold.

    Honestly, not a bad idea that!!!

  • Rrralphster #15 2 years ago

    There are 2 things in my house, which I bought, that are not mine.

    1. my driver's license
    2. my passport

    They allways belong to the state of The Netherlands.

    EVERY other item is my PROPERTY. I can do whatever I want with it.

  • MiniAmin #16 2 years ago

    @ Beemoh I can't believe that we're having to go through this on two threads today, but the only reason new game buyers have to trade in old titles is because the trade in of old titles keeps new prices high.

    I agree, but that's irrelevant to my point really. All i'm saying is that sometimes people buy new, sometimes people buy preowned. To treat them as fundamentally different groups of consumers is flawed.

  • Cronan #17 2 years ago

    Online games don't have to cost any money to keep running. Microsoft provide the authentication and match-making and about a half-dozen other services, and virtually all the network code these days (especially on the Xbox) is some variant of peer-to-peer. THQ and EA run their own authentication servers because they want more control, not because it's essential.
    Edited by 1 at 24/08/10 @ 12:56

  • bf #18 2 years ago

    I really can't see the logic behind this kind of reasoning. I know the companies are trying to justify it with arguments like "we need money to keep the servers running" but that's just silly. I fail to see how it would make any difference in server costs between one person playing one copy of a game on-line or ten people playing the one copy of the game on-line. I mean there is still only one player on-line per game copy so the maximum server load must be the number of games sold regardless of how many times they are resold.
    In fact they ought to get higher running costs if everyone keeps their games playing them online instead of trading them in under this new scheme.
    Anyway, bollocks the lot of it.

  • JahB #19 2 years ago

    @Rrralphster

    man i really hope that includes your wife =)

  • butler` #20 2 years ago

    @Rrralphster EVERY other item is my PROPERTY. I can do whatever I want with it.

    Sorry, but not so :)

    When you buy a game, or a peice of software, what you're buying is a licence to use it within a certain constraints (terms and conditions). You don't own the code. You don't own squat.

  • Irien #21 2 years ago

    One solution would be to drop the wholesale price of titles much faster - by all means charge a high price for week one purchases, but by 1 month / 6 weeks, get that price right down so that buying "new" is similar in cost to buying used. I routinely buy games for 10-20ukp online (new), but having to wait 6+ months before they drop that far can tempt me into a used sale.

    Also, used prices seem to stay high for a long time these days, which seems doubly insulting - 30ukp+ for a used game???

  • Sunyavadin #22 2 years ago

    @Butler

    Of course none of those license agreements would stand up in a UK court as has repeatedly been proven, so many of them violate trade laws.

  • dingo75 #23 2 years ago

    Yeah this worked very good for UFC 2010 that sold a record amount.
    Ah wait...

  • layleeloo #24 2 years ago

    Still support any version of this idea. People who do not see its value are blind or simply disgruntled second hand buyers only

  • bslsimes #25 2 years ago

    @butler
    Sorry, but not so. That assertion is often made by the sellers of software, firstly in an attempt to get out of liability for problems caused by their products and now more recently by games companies because they want more money. It has never been tested in court, and there are no software companies rushing to do so, because it won't stand.

    Do you walk into a games store and see ads for licences to play games? No. If they're going to claim that what you bought is something other than what was offered for sale, they're in contravention of the Sale of Goods Act. Plus there's all that inconveniently tangible stuff that comes as part of the product, you know, the disc, the box, the manual...

    But, basically, he shoots himself in the foot with his statement "If all of that revenue is going outside of the people who are making the games, it's really tough for us to fund them".

    If all of the revenue were going outside of the people making the games, there wouldn't be a second-hand market at all, as by definition nobody would have bought the games new.
    Edited by 1 at 24/08/10 @ 14:19

  • layleeloo #26 2 years ago

    @ riceNpea "make a quality product that people won't want to be rid of weeks after"

    This at statement is way off the mark and may be relevant to you but not in general.

    How good a game is bears little resemblance on the second hand market. If it's crap, people don't buy it new anyway so little second hand market. However brilliant games like uncharted 2' gears of war 2 etc i threw back into the second hand market in about a week. Thats nothing to do with how good or bad they were. They were excellent. However when I finish them, i sell them. I have no interest in a tacked on MP version of uncharted for example so no point keeping it once I've finished it. My circle of gaming friends are all similar, we buy games new on release, finish them and sell them on. This can be a matter of days even fpr excelent games. So how good a game is doesn't dictate the speed that it gets sold on or not
    Edited by 2 at 24/08/10 @ 14:24

  • VibratingDonkey #27 2 years ago

    If this DLC THQ's talking about really is actual DLC and not content in the game made inaccessible, then this sounds like a decent compromise.

    One problem that existed with Bad Company 2 was that the code was linked to that one account. Other accounts on the same console could not access the stuff EA removed. Ditto if you lent the game to someone. That's the problem I have with these types of passes, they impose restrictions on everyone.

    There are so many questionable things going on these days... I heard with Kane & Lynch 2 Eidos ripped three multiplayer maps out of the game and made them pre-order exclusives at three different retailers. EA made an entire multiplayer mode inaccessible for 30 days with Bad Company 2 unless you pre-ordered from Gamestop. And the whole VIP bullshit. Map packs are $15 for four maps now looks like. Horse armor. Etc.

    Sometimes I get tired. And it never stops, it just gets worse. Now we've got this new preLC thing, which very well could end up excluding the first chapter from a game. There's no way you'd know so...why not?

  • butler` #28 2 years ago

    @bslsimes

    I'm going on the back of a lecture given by someone high up in the BCS. I'm assuming the same goes for 'games' as goes for 'software' in the wider sense. Do tell me if I'm wrong.

    You're buying: the freedom to use, archive, re-sale, and backup the software.

    [link url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license# Proprietary_software
    ]http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_li...[/link]

    EULAs, which you're referring to, are the "by using this software you are agreeing to the terms of this license", whcih are becomming fairly common.

    It's not straight forward, but the point still stands: you don't own the game, the publisher/developer does. You're paying Ł40 to use it.

  • metalangel #29 2 years ago

    Somehow this just doesn't come across as evil as EA's efforts... and I have to say the sense of honesty and positive attitude is nice too.

    That and how they just say 'we really want to make good games for you guys to enjoy' as opposed to saying 'we are expectant to grow the franchise 17.6% this year in line with shareholder projections made in Q1'. And as I've said before, THQ should know that's important. They once had a reputation for being one of the worst game companies around, and IMHO they've completely turned it around into being one of the best.

  • bslsimes #30 2 years ago

    @butler The point still stands but the point is not legally correct. They can say that all you're paying for is a licence as much as they like, but just saying it doesn't make it true. EULAs aren't legally enforceable, which is why (as far as I know) they've never been tested in court.

  • byakuya83 #31 2 years ago

    butler, i think part of the problem lies with the fact you buy the game from a retailer, not direct from the original licensor. furthermore, when is the eula or agreement communicated or accepted by you? generally it's in the back of an instruction booklet contained within the case. it's not until after you've purchased the item that you are aware of the terms and conditions - i'm not sure that would be acceptable.

    thq charged people to access the online elements of ufc 2010 and that game didn't even work online.

    i won't be buying another thq game that has the pass code. i traded ufc 2010 after finishing the single player career as multiplayer online didn't work. for that same reason the second-hand value was less than it could have been.
    Edited by 1 at 24/08/10 @ 16:31

  • butler` #32 2 years ago

    If I buy a bible, I don’t own the original Lindisfarne Gospels; if I buy Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince on Blu-ray, I don’t own the movie but only a copy (whose usage is restricted by the terms of the licence); if I buy Microsoft Word, I own one copy of the compiled code, not the source.
    Edited by 1 at 24/08/10 @ 16:58

  • Shikasama #33 2 years ago

    butler - Yeah I was talking about dropping the wholesale price.

    People don't buy used games because they hate games developers (unless you are one of these moralistic anti-activision pricks) they buy them because they are cheaper. I suppose the problem with that is if you dropped the wholsesale price, there is no reason for the retailer to drop the shelfprice alongside it. It'd just be a bigger margin to them.

    So yeah, maybe its not as simple as that after all!

  • bslsimes #34 2 years ago

    @butler Your usage of the movie is legally restricted only by copyright law. The licence is, as previously mentioned, unenforceable. And your other analogies are, frankly, weird. Nobody has said anything about ownership of the original source material or the tools used to create it. But yes, you do own that copy of Microsoft Word, no matter what the EULA might have to say on the subject.

  • butler` #35 2 years ago

    see: "I can do whatever I want with it."

    No. No you can't. :)

    I didn't once mention EULAs which are, at best, a set of squishy, unenforcable rules that would never stand up in court (see Blizzard's WoW EULA if you want a real laugh).

    But yes, you do own that copy of Microsoft Word

    And alls im saying is dig a little deeper into what it means to 'own' a copy of some software: the freedom to use, archive, re-sale, and back it up.
    Edited by 1 at 24/08/10 @ 17:24

  • uknortherner2000 #36 2 years ago

    @Butler: The difference is, if you sold that copy of Harry Potter to a mate, he still gets the full experience - the film, outtakes, interviews, making of and everything else on those two discs, with NO RESTRICTIONS.

    Why the fuck should we tolerate this sort of crap for games? What makes the gaming industry so special that they can flout national laws with dubious (and illegal) EULAs that basically tries to override consumer rights? If I buy a game, it's mine and I will do with it as I damn well please.

  • bslsimes #37 2 years ago

    the freedom to use, archive, re-sale, and back it up
    Again, just because they say all they're selling you is the licence to use the software, doesn't make it so.

    But as this discussion is principally about re-sale I've rather lost the purpose to this part of it so I think I might just stop now.
    Edited by 1 at 24/08/10 @ 18:04

  • Pasco #38 2 years ago

    Dear publishers,

    I hope you don't act surprised if I wait half a year before I buy your game until the "complete edition" is out with all the downloadable content that should be there in the first place for half the price compared to when the game came out. See also "Ass Creed 2".

  • dingo75 #39 2 years ago

    Actually Bioware is waiting longer already for me to buy ME2.
    Since they announced yet another DLC their wait continues.

  • afghan_jones #40 2 years ago

    Surely the real answer is move towards better DD distribution models. Ones that are actually cheaper than physical retail copies, or DD rental services similar to their movie rentals via netflicks.

  • JayKwon #41 2 years ago

    Just buy them cheap new. 2nd hand buying is something I used to do, but nowadays with such cheap prices, sometimes even cheaper than 2nd hand, I can't really imagine why you should. Besides, the offer of THQ as well as EA with their 10 dollar project, seem very reasonable.

    It's just bad that the value for money for the 2nd hand buyer is really bad most of the time when you want the extra DLC. Also I don't like everything being digitilised, it probably means the prices would remain high (looking at Xbox on demand service).

  • RobotRocker #42 2 years ago

    We don't have much sympathy for publishers either due to them being price gouging fuckwits either so it all works out, THQ.

    Gonna keep CEX in business for a while yet methinks.

  • mkreku #43 2 years ago

    So uh.. since you're gonna be making money even from second hand sales (which other product does that??), I'm sure you're gonna drop the retail prices on new games too! No?

  • Bluetooth #44 2 years ago

    I just use the "buy 6 months after release" rule. Saves a lot of money and away from all the hype too.

  • Seoh #45 2 years ago

    [link url=http://w ww.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/8/25/
    ]http://ww w.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/8...[/link]

    nuff said

  • jpar123 #46 2 years ago

    THQ is basically asking the public to pay them for their game which I see no problem with.

  • gandhimaster #47 2 years ago

    I've always said that if developers etc can get a cut from second hand sales, then thats the perfect solution to this issue.

    As it stands, i agree that we should buy brand new if thats the only way the people who put the effort into making something get rewarded. Same applies to everything else we buy, but obviously thats not practical, altho it is the ideal.