[Kosh]

After this idiotic statement I just lost a lot of respect for them.

Smackdown vs. Raw 2011's one-time code for online play might upset pre-owned buyers - but THQ 'doesn't care'.

That's according to the publisher's creative director for wrestling games Cory Ledesma, who told CVG that "loyal fans" who are interested in buying the game first-hand are more important:

"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."

"That's a little blunt but we hope it doesn't disappoint people. We hope people understand that when the game's bought used we get cheated," he continued.

I hope people boycott their games after this. Not likely, but they should to send a message about fair use.

[Locutus of Borg]

I smell something illegal

[Kosh]

To be fair they aren't the first ones doing this, you can thank EA for that. But it still isn't right.

[StarSlayer]

Who buys Smackdown vs Raw?

[Klaustrophobia]

5th graders.

[Mongoose]

To be fair they aren't the first ones doing this, you can thank EA for that. But it still isn't right.

Why isn't it right?  THQ doesn't make any money whatsoever off of used-game sales.  From their perspective, those customers might as well not exist, as the only people profiting from them are GameStop and their ilk, so why should THQ court them?  And it's not like they've made any secret of the fact that the one-time code is required; people buying this used are presumably going to be informed about it beforehand.  I've heard people state that there's no restriction on selling cars or other items second-hand, and that's true...but in the case of cars, there's an obvious reduction in value you receive by going that route.  In the same way, it's not mind-blowing that buying a newly-released game at a discount should incur some corresponding reduction in its value.

(The comments from Tycho on this, as well as the responses to them further down, make for interesting reading.)

Honestly, I've started making it somewhat of a personal policy to stop buying used copies of in-print games when possible.  Not only is their condition often suspect at best, but there's also the fact that I'd rather be supporting the developers making them than the resellers stocking them.  The only stuff I go for used at this point are older-gen titles that obviously aren't making their original developers anything anymore.  And even then, I've sworn off GameStop entirely; my local Play 'n' Trade has a far broader selection (back to the 2600!) and generally better staff.

[General Battuta]

To be fair they aren't the first ones doing this, you can thank EA for that. But it still isn't right.

Wait wait wait, why not? This kind of EA Ten Dollar-style initiative is the only sane alternative to DRM. If it's a choice between this and toxic awful DRM, I want this on all my games, everywhere, forever.

Used game sales don't send a single cent to the developer or publisher, and this feels like a fairly harm-free way to counteract that. People who buy the game used can grab a code for a small fee.

It worked wonderfully for ME2.

[Dark RevenantX]

ME2 is offline, though.  There's always the option of just pirating the extra crap.

[Droid803]

...and what if you happen to like reformatting your computer instead of bogging it down with an antivirus?
I have to reinstall my games every few months, and limited number of installs is the thing I avoid like the ****ing plague.

Unless its just a "make an account" thing like SC2 where the (one time) activation goes wherever the game is installed with me (just gotta log on and all), and isn't tied to the install of the game, I can't see how this is a good idea, at all.

[Mongoose]

A) We're talking about the 360 and PS3 here, not a PC game.

B) The code would presumably be tied to your XBL/PSN account, so you could use it whenever/wherever.

[headdie]

to be honest so long as it's explained on the back of the box in clear text I don't have a serious issue with this.  as has been commented on here from a business perspective pre owned games are competition to the devs and publishers by simultaneously providing an alternative to purchasing the game new and lowering the market value of the game.

[sarcasm]
the only moral aspect of this is you have to feel sorry for those who deliberately wait a week to buy the the game used at 75% of the sale value new at which time the developer and publisher don't see a single penny from the re-sale. 
[/sarcasm]

To be fair there is a moral side to this in what about those who buy the game after its publishing run is finished, there are no new copies about but for some reason you want that game (e.g. those of  us who don't have homeworld 2 but want it to play matts FS conversion) then code like this becomes a moral problem. But even then its more of  a niggle than a big whoop.

Now if there was a law/system in place where by shops, websites and other profitable organisations selling used games have to give say 5-10% of the sale to the publisher/developer while the game is still being published then i would have an issue with this

[Mongoose]

I think the real key here is what you mentioned about the turn-around time on the used-games business as-is.  Less than a week after a game hits the shelves, you can wander into a GameStop and find used copies for, say, $40 instead of the retail $60...and what's even better, the guy who traded it back in during that week probably got only $25 for it.  GameStop then goes out of their way to promote these used copies, since they turn a much larger profit on them than they would on new ones.  It's an incredibly shady business model, and I don't blame publishers/developers for wanting to cut into it.

(Of course, I'm not applying this to older out-of-print titles, which are pretty much fair game as far as used copies are concerned.)

[Kosh]

To be fair they aren't the first ones doing this, you can thank EA for that. But it still isn't right.

Why isn't it right?  THQ doesn't make any money whatsoever off of used-game sales.  From their perspective, those customers might as well not exist, as the only people profiting from them are GameStop and their ilk, so why should THQ court them?  And it's not like they've made any secret of the fact that the one-time code is required; people buying this used are presumably going to be informed about it beforehand.  I've heard people state that there's no restriction on selling cars or other items second-hand, and that's true...but in the case of cars, there's an obvious reduction in value you receive by going that route.  In the same way, it's not mind-blowing that buying a newly-released game at a discount should incur some corresponding reduction in its value.

(The comments from Tycho on this, as well as the responses to them further down, make for interesting reading.)

Honestly, I've started making it somewhat of a personal policy to stop buying used copies of in-print games when possible.  Not only is their condition often suspect at best, but there's also the fact that I'd rather be supporting the developers making them than the resellers stocking them.  The only stuff I go for used at this point are older-gen titles that obviously aren't making their original developers anything anymore.  And even then, I've sworn off GameStop entirely; my local Play 'n' Trade has a far broader selection (back to the 2600!) and generally better staff.

It isn't right because of a legal term called "fair use", meaning once you buy it you are legally permitted to resell it. Another term for that is "user's rights". Think of it this way, what if you bought a car and after a couple years you wanted to resell it after you bought a newer one, but the car company has a "single driver" policy, because after all the people on the assembly line or the engineers who designed don't get a cent from resales so it isn't fair. How would you feel about that? If you enjoy letting greedy executives **** you in the ass with overpriced products that don't even allow you to use it fairly or worse cripple your system (or the game) with their DRM then feel free to keep buying, that's the only way to make sure that they keep this up.

[Satellight]

IMO, DRM are killing my playing pleasure 

I have a very, very, very LARGE collection of PC & consoles games, the oldest of them don't had these ****ing protections, only a CD serial number, like HW2. I will precise that I BOUGHT these games. Videogames are my passion, and even I am not rich, I bought them.

Some games, like Ubisoft's ones, need to have an Internet connection available permanently to play, even in single player mode. This is awful. I have only a ****ty 3G connection at home, with limited capabilities, because I live in the middle of nowhere.

Why should I mess myself with another thing than the REAL price of the physical support of my game ? I know, this is the future (look at this : www.onlive.com), but I'm afraid of this future.

It's because of that I really appreciate GOG.com : no DRM, infinite DL of a game (i.e. if you lost the file), good price in regard of the fact you don't have the physical support, goodies and good support.

[Polpolion]

I'm not surprised. I'm not concerned, either. Used games are just as bad for the developers as pirated games, so they have just as much right to take anti-secondhand gaming measures as they do anti-piracy measures.

[Spoon]

I have to feel quilty for buying a used game now?
Next up they want you to stop buying second hand cars 

[General Battuta]

I have to feel quilty for buying a used game now?
Next up they want you to stop buying second hand cars 

You shouldn't jump into a thread with a point that was already addressed at some length. 

[Glowhyena]

Who buys Smackdown vs Raw?

Nope. This game looks stupid to me.

[Scotty]

meaning once you buy it you are legally permitted to resell it

Yeah, and you still are.

Just not the multi.

[Klaustrophobia]

and you legally bought the multi as well.  what should be done is the original account deactivated upon activation of a new one.  what they are doing now is selling a product, then taking it away and keeping the money.  how would it be if that when you want to move, you aren't allowed to sell your house?  it just has to be demolished.