Gaming is not cheap when you complete games pretty fast, and unless the online play is extremely special, you’ll almost certainly let the game collect dust with so much competition in almost every genre. When this happens some of us have a better idea, rather than let games collect dust we get some money towards our next purchase by trading the game in.
Developers are not that keen on people buying second hand games, the main reason is the loss of money from used games, although some people will disagree and point to DLC as a way for extra money from used games. It’s rumored that Battlefield 3 will feature a little used game prevention, which will be thanks to an “Online Pass system” that is a way for the developers to get money for server costs from second hand buyers. While there is no confirmation on how this could be implemented, do you think it’s fair for those that buy a cheaper used game to pay for a code to get online access?
We’ve heard from Activision before on the idea of charging for online play, and it has been clear to this point. They don’t intend on charging for Call of Duty multiplayer, even with second hand game buyers. Some people feel this gives COD an advantage, do you agree? BF3 has entered into full hype mode, with online discussions focused on the better graphics and advanced destruction, which are hoped by some to help the Battlefield series gain market share.
While Battlefield gamers feel comfortable with codes in the box, how will Call of Duty gamers feel that make the jump to Battlefield 3, especially if they buy a used copy? It’s our view that those behind each game want to earn money in different ways from the player, Activision are known for this with DLC that comes out in what seems just a few days after the last DLC.
Do you buy many games second hand? If so, how do you feel about this news and what if Call of Duty went the same way in time?
*Identifying Monetised Links - outgoing links that we monetise are marked with an '*' symbol.