Sediverse Studios Better living through science!

THQ vs The World 2011!!

Short Explanation:  THQ has decided to use a "one time code for online play" for Smackdown vs. Raw 2011.  A lot of people go insane.  Especially people who prefer used games.  THQ then stands up for its decision and says "Hey, we don't really care about people that buy the game used because it doesn't profit us."

So there's two main camps here: Those that say what THQ is doing is unfair, and those who say it's understandable.

So I'm going to tackle a few of the popular arguments of both sides, just because.

1. "OMFG!! This is like if Ford demanded that secondhand cars didn't have engines/wipers/wheels/whatever!!"

No, it's not. They're limiting online play and DLC, not gutting the game so it doesn't work.  Second, they still have to support the game and whatnot.  Ford (and other manufacturers) don't get their panties in a bunch about secondhand dealing because it's just a product, with no support from them.  Now, if they had to honor free manufacturer warranties and leasing...  Then they might get a bit upset.  But this isn't like buying a car or anything else where you just buy it and use it.  So, essentially, what THQ is doing here is making it so the one time use code gives you all the stuff that they actually has to maintain.

2. "But still! If the game wasn't sold, then they would still have to offer support/server/whatever to the first person so it doesn't change!!  It's not like they suddenly have to be responsible to TWO people!"

Actually, how long you play the game factors into how much they charge for support.  If the average play time is say, 50 hours a month, for 3 months, with, say, a 25% decrease in play time each month...  That's factored into how much the game will cost.  Or rather, since most games cost about the same, it factors into the division of profit from the sale of the title.  Make some concessions here, offer DLC to offset the loss, and try to even the whole thing out.  So, if the game gets sold secondhand then the second person now has play time that isn't accounted for, and the servers and support have to be applied towards the second person... etc. etc.  It's kinda like how a car is designed for so many miles of usage, but the second person to get it always has to replace something major.  Well, if Ford had to be the one to foot that cost... they would probably get pissy.  Same with THQ.  Once again, THQ isn't taking the engine out of the car, they're just removing the services and support that they have to pay to maintain.  And from that standpoint, I'm fairly certain that they'll offer people a way for people to buy that one time code to activate the services and support.

3. "Why don't they go after the retailers instead of the consumers?!?"

Because retailers have better lawyers.

Aside from that, even if they went after the retailers, you would end up having to pay for the retailer's court fees and whatever money that the game industry demanded.  Cost is never absorbed by the middleman.

4. "If these moronic publishers haven't realized a large majority of consumers use pre-owned sales to pay for their new purchases then that's their problem."

No, they don't.  The logistics of that would be absurd.  Unless people are literally crapping out 3 used games a day out of thin air, there's no way a majority of people could be trading in 5-6 games to get 1 new one.  I understand though, that odds are most likely he's talking about trading in one game to offset the cost of buying a new game, but, to do the math:  if you buy two used games for $20 each, then trade in those games to get a new game at $60 with a $4 trade in value...  You spent a total of $52 + $40 for a chance to play 3 games.  Just to keep this going, if you were then to trade in that new game once you beat it for $22 credit to buy a different new game, you just spent the previous $92 + $38 so now you're up to $130 for 4 games.  So, is there a benefit to using played games to pay for new games?  Well, yes, but you're still stupid.  Gamefly is $22.95 a month, which is about 6 months for your 4 games.

5. "I totally agree with what they're doing! Places like GameStop are just cheating the developers out of money, and forcing us into a cycle of crappy games!!"

Well... yeah, they are, but THQ's plan—while logical—is going to end up biting a lot of other industries in the ass and generally mucking about with everything.  THQ's system is actually being looked at by a large portion of the gaming industry because it seems to solve a lot of the money drain that secondhand games cause... but if it does get widely implemented, there will be a few problems.  First off, game rentals would basically die, especially for games that are centered around online play—which at the moment is about 60% of the games on the market.  Second, new games sales would probably drop a bit.  They'd probably spike at first, then drop like a rock over the next year or two.  Why?  Because people who normally can't afford games, can't make the games affordable via trade-in (which, while being stupid as a primary method of affording games, is still practical at the smaller scale, like 1/5 or whatever.  Haven't done the math yet).  Plus, you have a market problem.  A fair amount of game sales comes from people going into retailers with little opinion on what they want to buy (or to put it simply:  they go in looking for a cheap used game and walk out with a new game).  However, if the retailer suddenly has the appearance of a higher financial requirement for the majority of their stock, people will find other things to spend money on.  This applies even if retailers still carry used games, so long as the consumer knows that a new game is a thoroughbred stallion and the used games are a limping goat.

As for the cycle of crappy games?  Sorry gamers, that's your own damned fault.  If it's more profitable for a company to lambast you with ads and demos and previews and offers than it is to make a good game... guess what? That's what they're going to do.

"Oh, but we can't find out if the game is worth our money without buying it!"

Yeah, true.  But once they break their promises...  STOP BUYING FROM THEM.  Even if the new game looks totally friggin awesome.  Cuz, you know, I'll bet the one you regret buying looked totally friggin awesome too.

My Opinion:
It's a fairly logical idea that would fix some of the losses of secondhand sales.  However, two things need to absolutely solid before it's a viable solution:
1. There must be a way for people who buy used games to get the one time codes.
2. There needs to be rental codes as well so places that rent games can continue to operate and entice players into buying full copies, otherwise, BAM! 8% of the market is just gone.