Do you support the idea of online pases?

Just curious, but what do you think about the concept of online passes?

Personally, I think its a pretty sad attempt to curtail the sale of used games and it puts me off from buying such games.

As much as I'd like to try a game like Homefront, I get the feeling that forcing people to buy the game new or pay to be able level up past level 5 if they buy a used copy will create a smaller group of online players and the online experience will be a let down.

If the online passes were around $2.00, I'd say who cares, but $10.00 seems a bit much.

Actually no i dont really have problem, since usually i dont by used games. If i buy a used game chances are it wont be one that has an online multiplayer for it anyway.

No i don't. I also don't support dlc that gets released at launch.

I don't know. On one side it's ridiculous because it gouges the consumer another ten dollars depending upon how they purchase but on the other, developers don't see a penny from sales of used games so I don't blame them. Honestly, I'm indifferent considering games that I purchase for multiplayer I purchase on Steam so they're new and I don't get targeted. :D

I guess I don't mind the online passes just as long as developers never try to push banning used sales.

I'm all for the companies trying to make some extra cash, and take some away from used game sales. I buy all my games used, but they are not MP heavy type games anyways. Until they start charging people to activate all their games it doesn't bother me.

No, this is worthless, making someone pay to be able to level up is just stupid.

Nope...I'm "not" feeling it!!! Because it's just a matter of time before all the companies start doing it.

Of all the anti-used games/piracy strategies we've seen, online passes are definitely the best idea. I actually really like the idea, if you buy the game new, then it doesn't affect you. If you decide that you'd rather give your money to gamestop then the people who worked their asses off to make the game, then you get to pay extra to play online.

Of all the anti-used games/piracy strategies we've seen, online passes are definitely the best idea. I actually really like the idea, if you buy the game new, then it doesn't affect you. If you decide that you'd rather give your money to gamestop then the people who worked their asses off to make the game, then you get to pay extra to play online.

hxczuner

Of all the anti-used games/piracy strategies we've seen, online passes are definitely the best idea. I actually really like the idea, if you buy the game new, then it doesn't affect you. If you decide that you'd rather give your money to gamestop then the people who worked their asses off to make the game, then you get to pay extra to play online.

hxczuner

Of all the anti-used games/piracy strategies we've seen, online passes are definitely the best idea. I actually really like the idea, if you buy the game new, then it doesn't affect you. If you decide that you'd rather give your money to gamestop then the people who worked their asses off to make the game, then you get to pay extra to play online.

Just curious, but what do you think about the concept of online passes?

Personally, I think its a pretty sad attempt to curtail the sale of used games and it puts me off from buying such games.

As much as I'd like to try a game like Homefront, I get the feeling that forcing people to buy the game new or pay to be able level up past level 5 if they buy a used copy will create a smaller group of online players and the online experience will be a let down.

If the online passes were around $2.00, I'd say who cares, but $10.00 seems a bit much.

d_parker

so a used car dealers should send the makers some cash for every used car they sell? if i sell my sony tv to someone else i give a cut to sony? or if i sell a book that i've read? it's endless if starts applying to everything in our lives.

If I ran my own video game publishing company, I would offer some kind of program where people can sell their games back to me, and then I'd resell them just like GameStop does. Online passes are only good for one thing: pissing people off.

I don't have any problem with online pass. People don't seem to mind Gamestop giving them very little for their used games and then turning around and selling them for almost-new prices, but when the people who actually make the game would like to make a bit of money off their product, then people complain.

Whatever :roll:

Of all the anti-used games/piracy strategies we've seen, online passes are definitely the best idea. I actually really like the idea, if you buy the game new, then it doesn't affect you. If you decide that you'd rather give your money to gamestop then the people who worked their asses off to make the game, then you get to pay extra to play online.

hxczuner

one might argue that the price of the game contains the online development fee, the server establishment and maintenance fees as well, but in order for the ever growing database needs of the online titles, such an "online activation / registration fee" is just logical from the maintenance point of view, i don't know how it's price can be justified though, it is a much more complex calculation than i can do right now... anyways, no publisher is asking a fee for the single player campaign... :)

edit: fixed grammar... :)

Yes. Devs have all rights to not allow players who didn't gave them a penny to use their services (that cost money). Why would they want to make a loss on guys they don't need as customers at all? I actually also support a registration of the game on a PSN account so you can't sell it, like they did with DCU. The more money devs and publishers get, the more they have to put in new titles resulting in more quality titles and more variety as they have more money to risk new IPs

Yes. Devs have all rights to not allow players who didn't gave them a penny to use their services (that cost money). Why would they want to make a loss on guys they don't need as customers at all? I actually also support a registration of the game on a PSN account so you can't sell it, like they did with DCU. The more money devs and publishers get, the more they have to put in new titles resulting in more quality titles and more variety as they have more money to risk new IPs

ArchoNils2

P.S - none of my games are 2nd hand and i have never sold any of my games back

[QUOTE="ArchoNils2"]

Yes. Devs have all rights to not allow players who didn't gave them a penny to use their services (that cost money). Why would they want to make a loss on guys they don't need as customers at all? I actually also support a registration of the game on a PSN account so you can't sell it, like they did with DCU. The more money devs and publishers get, the more they have to put in new titles resulting in more quality titles and more variety as they have more money to risk new IPs

crashndash

P.S - none of my games are 2nd hand and i have never sold any of my games back

so a used car dealers should send the makers some cash for every used car they sell? if i sell my sony tv to someone else i give a cut to sony? or if i sell a book that i've read? it's endless if starts applying to everything in our lives.

nickkick

THIS! There are second hand markets for pretty much everything.

I'm all for it.

[QUOTE="ArchoNils2"]

Yes. Devs have all rights to not allow players who didn't gave them a penny to use their services (that cost money). Why would they want to make a loss on guys they don't need as customers at all? I actually also support a registration of the game on a PSN account so you can't sell it, like they did with DCU. The more money devs and publishers get, the more they have to put in new titles resulting in more quality titles and more variety as they have more money to risk new IPs

P.S - none of my games are 2nd hand and i have never sold any of my games back

now that i think about it why are games so much O.o they useto be way less?crashndash

No, they didn't. I remember paying $50 for new NES games 22 years ago. They really haven't kept up with inflation. In fact, when adjusted for inflation I'm paying less now than I did then.

[QUOTE="crashndash"]now that i think about it why are games so much O.o they useto be way less?worlock77

No, they didn't. I remember paying $50 for new NES games 22 years ago. They really haven't kept up with inflation. In fact, when adjusted for inflation I'm paying less now than I did then.

the movie - games analogy is somewhat relevant since the movies are made for many mediums but games are limited to just a handful of platforms, which are not mass enjoyed at the same time like in a movie theater, if that were the case we would have payed either less for the aaa games or more for the movies... :)MondasM

What I wonder about is what kind of online community are we going to end up with.

With Black Ops, (I think it's safe to say Activision is making some money off this game without having online passes), you can buy the game, play it, sell it and the next guy or gal can play it online. Lots of people online.

But if you have a pass system, if someone buys it, doesn't like it, sells it - the next buyer may not be inclined to pay to go online and that's one less person playing online. For Homefront, you could end up with 75% of the online players having a top rank of 5 and the people who bought it levelling up to 75 - that could be a pretty lame scene. I'm gonna guess the lower ranks would take out the higher ranks first just for spite.

Are people going to have to check the sale figures of a game to make sure there's an online community before they plunk down $60.00 for a game?

A game like Blur has no online pass, it's a great game but has a small online community. Just how small will the online community be for an average game like Homefront be two months after its release?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="crashndash"]now that i think about it why are games so much O.o they useto be way less?crashndash

No, they didn't. I remember paying $50 for new NES games 22 years ago. They really haven't kept up with inflation. In fact, when adjusted for inflation I'm paying less now than I did then.

Well for what it's worth I can only speak for prices in the US here. Don't about other places.

What I wonder about is what kind of online community are we going to end up with.

With Black Ops, (I think it's safe to say Activision is making some money off this game without having online passes), you can buy the game, play it, sell it and the next guy or gal can play it online. Lots of people online.

But if you have a pass system, if someone buys it, doesn't like it, sells it - the next buyer may not be inclined to pay to go online and that's one less person playing online. For Homefront, you could end up with 75% of the online players having a top rank of 5 and the people who bought it levelling up to 75 - that could be a pretty lame scene. I'm gonna guess the lower ranks would take out the higher ranks first just for spite.

Are people going to have to check the sale figures of a game to make sure there's an online community before they plunk down $60.00 for a game?

A game like Blur has no online pass, it's a great game but has a small online community. Just how small will the online community be for an average game like Homefront be two months after its release?

d_parker

Don't most people who play shooters online buy them when they're first released? That's been my understanding at least.

so a used car dealers should send the makers some cash for every used car they sell? if i sell my sony tv to someone else i give a cut to sony? or if i sell a book that i've read? it's endless if starts applying to everything in our lives.

nickkick

[QUOTE="ArchoNils2"]

Yes. Devs have all rights to not allow players who didn't gave them a penny to use their services (that cost money). Why would they want to make a loss on guys they don't need as customers at all? I actually also support a registration of the game on a PSN account so you can't sell it, like they did with DCU. The more money devs and publishers get, the more they have to put in new titles resulting in more quality titles and more variety as they have more money to risk new IPs

P.S - none of my games are 2nd hand and i have never sold any of my games back

I have no problem with the way EA handles them

Yes. Devs have all rights to not allow players who didn't gave them a penny to use their services (that cost money). Why would they want to make a loss on guys they don't need as customers at all? I actually also support a registration of the game on a PSN account so you can't sell it, like they did with DCU. The more money devs and publishers get, the more they have to put in new titles resulting in more quality titles and more variety as they have more money to risk new IPs

ArchoNils2

I had 40+ PS3 games at one point, only bought one at full retail price, everything else used at half the price or even less. So no I don't support online pass. jack00

[QUOTE="ArchoNils2"]

Yes. Devs have all rights to not allow players who didn't gave them a penny to use their services (that cost money). Why would they want to make a loss on guys they don't need as customers at all? I actually also support a registration of the game on a PSN account so you can't sell it, like they did with DCU. The more money devs and publishers get, the more they have to put in new titles resulting in more quality titles and more variety as they have more money to risk new IPs

jack00

And how does your calculation work that a game isn't worth $60 (or in my case her ein Switzerland around $90)? If I'm going to cinema I pay around $15 for a movie here and if I want to drink something or eat some Popcorn I'm not allowed to bring my stuff but have to buy it and I have costs for the way there and back. But that aside, if I pay $15 for a movie I reach the $90 after 6 times going there, I have a total of about 9 hours entertainment. So if a game lasts 9 hours it should be perfectly fine? I get easely about 9 hours average out of my games :S