Do you think the the ban of used games will allow publishers to take more risks and spend more on new IP?

There's a lot of debates over used games, next-generation consoles and
whether or not gamers should be allowed to play used games on new
consoles, codenamed Durango and Orbis. Well, DICE has chimed in on the debate, and they express mixed feelings about the pros and cons of used game sales.



According to CVG, Battlefield 3 executive producer Patrick Bach mentioned that...

"Yeah, I heard about that. I think that can be a win and a loss," ... "I
think it's a loss if it only means that you will be able to get fewer
games for the same money. But in theory you could see it the other way,
because a lot of companies making games today are struggling based on
second-hand sales."

I'm really not sure where this "struggling based on second-hand sales"
come from. There really is no correlation between that statement and the
second-hand market. But that really doesn't compare to what Bach says
next, which leaves me quite baffled. As he later says...

"So if you think that there are too few new IPs on the market, no one
can take that risk if their game is at risk of being resold too many
times. Therefore you see a lot of online games being the most popular.
You mentioned that you feel like a lot of [online shooters] have the
same formula and this is one of the reasons, which most people seem to
not realise.



"So on the positive side you could see more games being created because
of this, and also more new IPs, because there'd be a bigger market for
games that don't have for instance multiplayer. There could be awesome
single player-only games, which you can't really do these days because
people just pirate them, which is sad."

Eh, people pirate PS3 games? I didn't know that. That's news to me, Patrick!



I find it funny that used games are now the equivalent of piracy. I
don't see how. The second-hand market exists in every single other
medium and yet game publishers don't seem to understand how it looks
anti-consumerist to block that kind of buying option for consumers.



What's worse is that according to Bach he somehow believes that by
extricating used game sales you somehow boost potential profits for the
publishers to "take more risks". No, no, no.



Publishers can take plenty of risks now, but as mentioned, people like
DICE's employers, Electronic Arts, spends almost as much money on
marketing (i.e., $747 million) as GameStop makes on the their entire used game sales market. Is that not insane or what?



By removing second hand sales not only hurts GameStop, which in turn
hurts consumer buying options, it also lessens the chance a gamer will
even buy a game to begin with. Removing used games is the equivalent of
fighting piracy: used game buyers and pirates are not going to spend
more money just because previous options of acquirement have been
blocked...they just won't spend money at all.



Bach finishes off his comments with the following statements...

"From a gamer perspective, if you want to buy as many games as possible
then this could be a problem, but if you want more diverse games then
it's a more positive thing than negative. The only thing I know is that
people are not doing it to be evil and stupid, it's about trying to
create some benefits for consumers."

Well, how about this: we keep used games, second-hand sales, etc. Big
publishers keep trying to monopolize where they can and they can keep
spending money much to the chagrin of gamers and developers alike.
On the flipside, gamers and developers can keep building up stronger
relationships and exploring the creative nature of gaming with KickStarter, IndieGoGo and Gambitious. Sound fair?