Take-Two's Answer To Used Games: MMO Subsription Fees In Non-MMO Games
I understand that developers don't like the used game market. To them, it's just as bad as piracy since people are able to get their game without them seeing a single penny of the purchase. But some of the ideas that developers have to try and stop, or at least slow down, used sales can get a little out of hand. When speaking at the recent BMO Capital Market's conference, Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick threw out some ideas of his own. It started out sensible enough, talking about downloadable content and building a deep multiplayer community to extend the length of a game so people are less likely to trade them in. But then Zelnick went on to talk about his "Holy Grail" plan and I began to cringe.
The holy grail is taking a business, already a very large and successful business that's focused on packaged goods that you sell once and then are occasionally resold by others with new benefit to us, and turning that into a subscription business or a semi subscription business where we have an ongoing relationship with consumers, giving them products that they want. Who's better positioned to do that than the company that has the top franchises.It's our view that you won't be able to apply a subscription model to mid-tier titles. The triple-a titles that people really want to have that are really must have are in the best position for this business model.
Yes, I do believe that making gamers pay a monthly subscription fee for non-MMO games would make used sales of the game drop. It would also make new sales of the game drop. Really, with the economy the way it is and game sales dropping overall, the solution for the videogame industry is to charge people more over a longer period of time? Let's first say that the system does actually work for MMOs, but that's because an MMO is only online and relies on server maintenance which is where those subscription fees go. To charge a subscription fee for non-MMO games is just greedy.
Actually, if anything a subscription fee would encourage used sales. Someone who buys the game new could decide that the game wasn't actually worth the fees and sell it back sooner than they would have normally. Then someone else who buys the game used at a lower price might be more willing to pay the subscription fees. The only way I could see the subscription fees working is if every new game came with a download code that acted as a waiver, making the people who bought the game used the only ones who would need to pay the subscription. But somehow I don't think that's what Zelnick had in mind.
As someone who worked at a GameStop for three years, I have to put in my own two cents about used games sales and how they effect a developer's profits. Quite frankly, they don't, or if they do it's by a fairly low margin. The people who buy games used normally wait until the used price is significantly less than what the game originally costs. Normally this is several months after the game has been released and, more often than not, after the game is out of print and has stopped shipping to stores. So these are sales after the publishers of the game have already given up on selling any more copies. Once the publishers have given up on selling the game, it's harder to sympathize with them when people start buying the game used. This isn't always the case, but an overwhelming majority of the time that's how it happens.
Is Take-Two Thinking of Subscription-Based GTA and BioShock? [Kotaku]
NaviFairy
Posted to Video Games on 14 November 2008
· Comments (9)
Other stuff like this: bad idea, subscription, Take-Two, used games
wtf? how could anyone think that would be a good idea? That's just plain stoooopide.
That will never work. Ever.
Well, I'm wondering...what if they lower the price of the game drastically, and then charge one dollar a month or something? You could buy GTA4 for $20 and get charged $1 a month for playing it.
It's just to implement some sort of pay scheme to limit piracy.
Well, I'm wondering...what if they lower the price of the game drastically, and then charge one dollar a month or something? You could buy GTA4 for $20 and get charged $1 a month for playing it.
It's just to implement some sort of pay scheme to limit piracy.
I wouldn't pay and I wouldn't buy games. Period. I already barely have time to play the games I buy...but to buy a game...get busy for a few months and then realize I'm still paying a monthly fee for that game. Ludicrous! I think if they did this they would quickly realize people are NOT going to do it. Stupid people making decisions that could jeopardize a profitable industry.
IF this ever does get implemented then I will Pirate my face off and never buy a game with that system and I wont be the only one by a LONG shot.
I think a lot of the ideas of how to tackle the used game market that publishers have are ludicrous.
I'd like to think DLC that gives you content that they didn't have in the game would soften the blow a little bit. But, with the stories of some of the publishers wanting to implement a system where you'd pay more money if you bought a game used to get to certain sections of a game really does not make any logical sense.
It's upsetting how game developers and publishers are using a good idea, DLC, to nickel and dime you with content that should be in the game already. I don't know if anyone expected it to happen that way. But, that's going to become the reality of it unless we use our dollar vote.
If they go in with that model, I fear to think of what would happen when games can eventually be downloaded and streamed in a mainstream console as the primary content delivery service.
Such a proposition has no potential whatsoever. Were that to happen, the mass populous would be more inclined to rent their video games from an outlet like Blockbuster or Gamefly as opposed to pay constant money for an inconstant object. That'd be like making incremental payments on my bed or my clothes.
These developers really need to not shoot their mouths off with crazy ideas of how to tackle the trade in market. But I do think they need to do it.
GAME in the UK has a policy of pushing the sale of a used game in favour of a brand new copy. eg today I was asked if I wanted to pay £40 instead of £45 for a used copy of Fable II Special Edition. I refused as part of having the Special Edition was the downloadable content which wasnt with the second hand copy. I then checked to see what trade in value the SE Fable II had... £20... £20!!!!! So GAME the company stand to make a 100% profit margin. Of course it makes great business sense for them, but what about Lionhead Studios?
I'm sure they're not starving for money, but my investment into the game by buying new could possibly help them produce bigger and better downloadable content and even a sequal.
I guess what I would like to see are games reduced in price and available content out of the box with options to pay more to play via downloadable content. Meaning I could trade in that game but the next person would have to pay and download the content to be able to play the game in its entirety.
So imagine picking up a barebone (but still playable) game for $20 then downloading extra content for around $20 once you've played and liked. This could then reward players with the option to NOT buy the content for a bad game and encourage developers to create killer must have games.