EA recently launched a new initiative a while back in which a unique code (such as Bad Company 2’s VIP or Mass Effect 2’s Cerberus Network) would incentivize purchasers not to trade their games back in by offering exclusive access to downloadable content (used game buyers would have to pay a fifteen dollar fee to access such a service). EA Sports also branched out with their own version of this program with the Online Pass, a one-time use token that would allow gamers to play the online portions of upcoming sports titles like Tiger Woods and Madden. Naturally, there was a bit of a backlash, but EA is just trying to protect itself from the ravenous jaws of the used game industry. So far, this is the only solution put forward by a publisher to actively combat trade ins, but is it the best one?
Enter Mark Lamia of Treyarch Studios, currently the developer of the upcoming Black Ops and potential savior of the Call of Duty series’ image amongst gamers. He maintains that a strong multiplayer segment and good post-launch support is the key to keep people playing your game long past the point of considering a trade-in. Teryarch still has a section of their studio working on keeping World at War fun, and they expect to dish out a lot of content for Black Ops. Instead of moving on immediately to the next project, they will be focusing on keeping fans engaged in the hopes that they’ll continue playing without gimmicks like VIP passes and online access codes, even if you bought the game used. With the new additions to multiplayer features like Wager Matches, replays and bringing back dedicated servers on the PC, Black Ops looks like it’s shaping up to be a proper title.
What do you guys think about his statement? What incentives would keep you from trading a game in? Online codes for first time purchasers, or a lot of DLC regardless of how you came by the title?
Source: MCV
Valve games keep me from trading in games. If they add hats to Black Ops, I’m buying it.
I’m actually the complete opposite, I have to find reasons to trade a game in. I know that there is always going to be a point where I will want to re play a game so boom there it is on my shelf.
I only trade a game in if it’s A) Terrible (Spore) or B) 0% Replay Value, I won’t miss it (Heavy Rain)
However if I did need to find reasons to KEEP games then it would be things like Valve games that have amazing continued support with patches, DLC and the like. TF2 being the absolutely staggering example of this where $20 buys you over 100 patches and 2gb of added on content over 3 or so years.
Although most of this is a moot point because over 50% of my purchases are off steam.
I never buy a game that I think I would trade in. I know what kinds of games I like and I hate trading them in so if I buy it, it’s mine.
Otherwise I rent it.
Personally, I don’t wanna see DLC right away, as that is annoying, but I think some free DLC to start and then add in the premium stuff would be cool.
@ Anthony: Exactly. Renting has become a lost art.
Post-launch support is always neat, as long as the content is some cheesy feature that they should have added pre-launch. Map packs are excusable, and I’m certainly looking forward to multiple Zombies maps in Black Ops, so I’m glad Treyarch is making sure Black Ops redeems Call of Duty. Hopefully, they’ll be smart enough to price the DLC at something under $15.
[quote comment=”13411″]@ Hopefully, they’ll be smart enough to price the DLC at something under $15.[/quote]
Haha, I think they would be dumb not to price it at 15,lol.
I was excited until I read this,
“If players want to run a dedicated Ranked or Unranked server on the PC, they will have to rent one through GameServers,”
http://pc.ign.com/articles/111/1119736p1.html
it looks like you have to pay $15 a month to “rent” a dedicated server.
Of course you’ll have to rent a dedicated server. That’s always been the way to do it. I’m not excited for this game, but I think I’ll end up owning it if I have enough friends who do.