This post has not been edited by the GamesBeat staff. Opinions by GamesBeat community writers do not necessarily reflect those of the staff.
You've just walked out of your local game store with a title that captivated your imagination during the last several months. You read every preview, listened to every podcast, watched every developer interview, and read all the reviews. You couldn't be more excited — except that you are, because you saved a bunch of money buying it used.
As the game boots up, you're suddenly prompted to enter a code. Code? You look through the packaging, but all you see is the manual and a safety instructions sheet.
After a little digging, you discover that the publisher wants another $10 from you, otherwise you'll have to do without "multiplayer online play, group features like online dynasty and leagues, user-created content, and bonus downloadable content for your game."
Welcome to Electronic Arts' Online Pass, a new "feature" the publishing giant unveiled with the launch of Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11. It's accessed through a one-time use code, so secondhand buyers will have to pony up for functionality that developers have traditionally included in the whole package.
What’s the end result of such a policy? Is it merely another revenue stream for publishers to exploit, and thus, it's good for everybody (publishers, developers, and consumers)? Well, no. The ancillary effects of devaluing used games could result in fewer new-game sales.
This isn't anything particularly new — these types of "bonuses" for first-time purchasers are more common than ever.
EA gated access to the NBA Live 365 service, which updates the game with real-life player trades and injuries during the season, for NBA Live 09 in the same way. Microsoft included such a code for Gears of War 2, which provided new-game buyers with access to five additional multiplayer maps. EA launched the Cerberus Network with Mass Effect 2, which gives players access to additional content and software updates.
Even more insidious is Dragon Age: Origins (another EA title), which included The Stone Prisoner downloadable content through a one-time-use code that came with an expiration date So, even if you bought new, you may end up paying extra.
In every case, the publisher required secondhand patrons to fork over some extra cash.
When EA launched NBA Live 365, they defended the practice of charging customers of used games additional fees:
This information and data is very valuable and it wasn't free for us.
T-Mobile is paying for it this year for all users who buy the game new.
This is a very expensive tool to use, and if you don't buy it new, then you'll have to pay for this. It isn't greed at all my man.
I’m not convinced, though. Those who buy used cannot increase support costs for EA in any way, since the first purchaser would no longer be a customer. Essentially, the second buyer would merely replace the first buyer; therefore, support costs should remain constant. How is this anything other than a money grab?
However anti-consumer this policy is, it’s clear that one-time-use codes are here to stay. If anything, they may become more prevalent — even Ubisoft wants to get in on the action. In fact, community member Michael Rousseau observed this trend a few months ago.
And while Rousseau recognizes that this concept serves to punish used-game buyers, the effect goes deeper than that. I talked to Simon Rothman, CEO of Glyde (a new player in the used-games business), about this exact issue. Rothman, who began his career with online, secondhand-sales giant eBay, knows a thing or two about e-commerce.
Rothman argues that “a strong secondary market supports a strong primary market.” How so? He explains, and I agree:
We believe that putting more money in gamers’ pockets will help drive new game sales, which we’re convinced is good for the consumer, the publisher, and the developer alike.
A gamer with money in his hands will buy some games. And it turns out a lot of people looked at this — they’re going to go out and buy a new game. Buyers who are cash-strapped will be introduced to franchises and will be able to buy new the next time around. So we’re convinced that putting more money in gamers’ pockets is just good for everybody.
On the specifics of devaluing used content, Rothman has experience from running eBay Motors — where he nationalized the secondhand-car market to retain the value of used vehicles, which in turn supported new-car sales. He says video games aren't any different:
If you think you have to pay $60 and you’re going to get zero out of it, you think about purchases very differently than if you pay $60 and you think, “You know, I can get $30 out of it a few months from now." If you know you can go in and out of games like that, you’re going to feel less sensitive about the price.
In the long run, EA's and other publishers' practice of devaluing used copies is problematic. Rothman argues that “the cost of production [for games] is going to go up, and these games are going to go from $60 and march their way up. They’re going to be $70 and $80, and they’re going to keep going up.”
He’s not just blowing smoke — we’ve already seen a few publishers toy with this. Both Activision Blizzard and Ubisoft upped the price of the PC versions of Modern Warfare 2 and Assassin’s Creed 2 to $60 when the standard is $50. Everybody's favorite publishing mogul, Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick, looks forward to more price hikes in the future, too.
Publishers ask a lot of consumers when they simultaneously increase the new price while also diminishing that game's used value. How likely are you to spend such money regularly?
