Let's talk straight about used games and online passes for a moment...

I keep hearing game publishers talking about how used games are the bogeyman that's going to kill off the industry, which is why they need stupid crap like online passes and stuff like that. Let's think about another industry for a minute, though-- automobiles. Are used cars a threat to auto manufacturers? How many people do you know who have never once sold a car or bought one used? Does the fact that someone can buy a used car mean that the industry is going to go belly up, since the manufacturer gets no money for it? The anser is no. If someone is selling a car, usually that means they are going to go buy a new one with the money they get for it, which is money that goes straight into the manufactuter's pocket.

Used merchandise cannot exist unless it gets bought new first. If 1,000,000 people want to buy something all at the same time, 1,000,000 units of it are going to be manufactured and sold to meet the demand. If your friend Joe decides he's used his enough and sells it, the manufacturer still made money off of it, and he now has money to go buy a new product, while the person he sold it to got a better deal on an older product that he wanted than if he bought it brand new.

There is no justification for online passes other than that in the long run, game publishers want to kill the used game market while further lining their pockets with money from people who buy used games. Look at it this way: It costs $10 to house one "spot" on the game's server. Joe plays the game for 6 months, and then sells it to his friend. By selling the game, Joe can no longer use his "spot" on the server, which means it's free for someone else to use. His friend, who bought the game from Joe, can now use Joe's spot when he plays. If Joe's friend plays the game for 6 months, does that somehow cost the game publisher more than if Joe had decided to play the game for 12 months instead of 6? Of course not. Online passes are pure profit.

In a nutshell, online passes are like if you bought a used car, but it was illegal for you to drive it on highways unless you paid a $1000 license fee to the auto manufacturer first. It's bad for consumers, and it's bad for the industry since they essentially get to make money without working for it, which in turn reduces competetiveness while reducing the need for innovation and creativity.

I agree with online passes, places like Gamestop are killing the video games industry.

I could be wrong as I know there are alot of custom parts around, but don't used cars still have to use manufacturer parts if something go wrong? I'm also pretty sure the original manufacturers also run used car dealerships.

cry more i guess? publishers/devs are just trying to get something out of the used games market.

I am okay with passes, as long as they are reasonable priced and only for online (***** the first company to trycampaign locking ideas).

Good online infrastructure cost money to maintain. If your using it, then the dev/pub should atleast get some money from you.

I support and agree with online passes. Used game sales hurt the people that actually put the effort into making the games, because they don't see any of the money. With the pass, at least they can make a profit, no matter how small, from used sales.

I buy all my games new anyway, so it's not a problem for me.

I agree with online passes, places like Gamestop are killing the video games industry.

DerpyMcDerp

[QUOTE="DerpyMcDerp"]

I agree with online passes, places like Gamestop are killing the video games industry.

Timstuff

Even if your arms could turn into rocket launchers? I think that would be cool.

I agree with online passes, places like Gamestop are killing the video games industry.

DerpyMcDerp

I agree, its such a shame that console gamers are destroying their gaming futures.

Nothing wrong with online passes. Publishers aren't selling used games, retailers are... so it only makes sense that they try to make something off them on the back end for games that have online portions, since the used game buyer isn't actually supporting them.

online passes are only phase one of the planned rip offs after on-disk-dlc and day1-dlc which wasremoved from the game, single player passes will be next phase soon because consumers didnt protect their interests enough by boycotting online passes , the ones who agree must be either people profiting from this rip off or just ....

The used car analogy isn't a good comparison. A lot of cars are certified and money still goes to the original manufacturer. Plus, way more people buy cars than video games, its considered a necessity in this age. I have a used car from a large used lot, but if something goes wrong with it I'm still serviced by the manufacturer. Car companies lose next to nothing on used cars.

A better comparison: used movies. You never hear Hollywood complaining about people buying used DvDs off Amazon or the like.

I have nothing against online passes since I buy new anyway. I might not buy immediately, but I'll wait until it goes down in price and get a fresh copy to support the developer.

I have no problem with people Ebaying their old games, but places that make a business out of selling used games? The prices difference is miniscule at best and the stores make ridiculously large amounts of profits because of it, which takes money away from developers and as such is killing the industry. If anything, there should be a law preventing stores from selling used games or developers should be charging at least half the price of the game to allow multiplayer access.

The Comparison to used cars is stupid...the industries are nothing alike.

I have no problem with people Ebaying their old games, but places that make a business out of selling used games? The prices difference is miniscule at best and the stores make ridiculously large amounts of profits because of it, which takes money away from developers and as such is killing the industry. If anything, there should be a law preventing stores from selling used games or developers should be charging at least half the price of the game to allow multiplayer access.

DerpyMcDerp

Sony tried to make it illegal but its difficult, its the same as used books/dvds from a legal point of view.

if you think of games as objects, like rocks, then what you say makes sense.

but technically they're selling a license to use software, and use the online services they are providing.

[QUOTE="DerpyMcDerp"]

I agree with online passes, places like Gamestop are killing the video games industry.

tenaka2

I agree, its such a shame that console gamers are destroying their gaming futures.

Is "destroying" our future really that much worse than destroying our past?

BAN THIS FILTH!

Seriously, people... What are we supposed to do when a game is no longer being manufactured, and we still want to own a copy of it? The used market is good because it ensures that all games will be available to buy, sell, trade, and play at any given time. If publishers had their way, every game would be exactly $60 forever, you can only buy a license as a digital download, and each license is permanantly tied to your DNA so no-one can use it except for you. And if they decide to take it off of their online store, too bad, you should have bought it when it first came out.

You may say that used games are robbing our future, but eliminating used games is is going to cause our future to have no history for us to enjoy. Used games will always exist, because there are billions of them out there already that the publishers can't take away, and the sale and trade of those games is always going to compete with the sale of new games on some level. Be thankful that the used game market exists, because it encourages publishers to make games that are worth keeping rather than selling, and it encourages them to make sure that they are worth the $60 asking fee that they ask for.

why do gamers find it so wrong that publisher want to make a profit from there games they spend years making.

people say 'oh it just greedy devs trying to milk every last $ out of there customers' so how much is it ok for them to make. at what point does thier profit become offensive to you.

the fact of the matter is that it only the online part you don't get if you buy second hand. you still get the full single player to play. the multiplayer is something that has an on going cost to the developer if they intend to support it with updates and patches. why should they give that support to people that are not there customers.

if your so desperate to save £5 off the cost of a game then fine, and lets face it the saving from buying used is never a great saving if you shop around on the internet then you can easy find deals that rival the second hand price.

but the developer has no obligation to you at all they do not owe you anything.

if you think of games as objects, like rocks, then what you say makes sense.

but technically they're selling a license to use software, and use the online services they are providing.

Firebird-5

if you think of games as objects, like rocks, then what you say makes sense.

but technically they're selling a license to use software, and use the online services they are providing.

Firebird-5

[QUOTE="DerpyMcDerp"]

I agree with online passes, places like Gamestop are killing the video games industry.

tenaka2

I agree, its such a shame that console gamers are destroying their gaming futures.

why do gamers find it so wrong that publisher want to make a profit from there games they spend years making.

people say 'oh it just greedy devs trying to milk every last $ out of there customers' so how much is it ok for them to make. at what point does thier profit become offensive to you.

the fact of the matter is that it only the online part you don't get if you buy second hand. you still get the full single player to play. the multiplayer is something that has an on going cost to the developer if they intend to support it with updates and patches. why should they give that support to people that are not there customers.

if your so desperate to save £5 off the cost of a game then fine, and lets face it the saving from buying used is never a great saving if you shop around on the internet then you can easy find deals that rival the second hand price.

but the developer has no obligation to you at all they do not owe you anything.

dog_dirt

Nothing wrong with online passes. Publishers aren't selling used games, retailers are... so it only makes sense that they try to make something off them on the back end for games that have online portions, since the used game buyer isn't actually supporting them.

Pug-Nasty

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

if you think of games as objects, like rocks, then what you say makes sense.

but technically they're selling a license to use software, and use the online services they are providing.

Timstuff

but they're not stopping you from playing the singleplayer aspect. they're simply licensing the right to play online, tracked by their servers. don't like it? don't buy. or if you think you can win, take it up with the anti trust people

What actually bothers me is i have a brother and i let him play my games just not on my account on PSN so if i buy a game and im the original owner and want to play on my other account i have to buy the stupid online pass and i buy my games new basically i had to pay $15 bucks extra for Bad Company 2 to unlock the stuff for my little brother and extra $10 for Homefront which i freaking regret. On other hand i really hate DLC thats on the disk, man i was furious when i found out i had to pay $5 bucks just to unlock MP in Resident Evil 5 WTF Capcom is greedy. I bet you guys any moneys next will see Passes for single player unlocked after a certain period of time playing with a used game lol. Has anyone saw the gun unlock prices for Bad Company 2 ? $5 bucks to unlock a few guns if you want them right away without progressing in MP.

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

if you think of games as objects, like rocks, then what you say makes sense.

but technically they're selling a license to use software, and use the online services they are providing.

Firebird-5

but they're not stopping you from playing the singleplayer aspect. they're simply licensing the right to play online, tracked by their servers. don't like it? don't buy. or if you think you can win, take it up with the anti trust people

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]That license is physically tied to disc or cartridge though, not me as a person, and the license never expires. If I want to re-sell that license to someone else there's no reason why I can't, because as soon as I sell the license I can't use it anymore. It's not like pirating a game where I can give someone a copy of my game and then still play it myself.

Timstuff

but they're not stopping you from playing the singleplayer aspect. they're simply licensing the right to play online, tracked by their servers. don't like it? don't buy. or if you think you can win, take it up with the anti trust people

seats don't use power the way servers do. and basketball games don't last forever

please stop with the faulty analogies

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

if you think of games as objects, like rocks, then what you say makes sense.

but technically they're selling a license to use software, and use the online services they are providing.

Firebird-5

but they're not stopping you from playing the singleplayer aspect. they're simply licensing the right to play online, tracked by their servers. don't like it? don't buy. or if you think you can win, take it up with the anti trust people

[QUOTE="Timstuff"][QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

but they're not stopping you from playing the singleplayer aspect. they're simply licensing the right to play online, tracked by their servers. don't like it? don't buy. or if you think you can win, take it up with the anti trust people

Firebird-5

seats don't use power the way servers do. and basketball games don't last forever

please stop with the faulty analogies

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]That license is physically tied to disc or cartridge though, not me as a person, and the license never expires. If I want to re-sell that license to someone else there's no reason why I can't, because as soon as I sell the license I can't use it anymore. It's not like pirating a game where I can give someone a copy of my game and then still play it myself.

AmnesiaHaze

but they're not stopping you from playing the singleplayer aspect. they're simply licensing the right to play online, tracked by their servers. don't like it? don't buy. or if you think you can win, take it up with the anti trust people

not gonna fly on consoles. FUD

[QUOTE="AmnesiaHaze"]

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

but they're not stopping you from playing the singleplayer aspect. they're simply licensing the right to play online, tracked by their servers. don't like it? don't buy. or if you think you can win, take it up with the anti trust people

Firebird-5

not gonna fly on consoles. FUD

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

Nothing wrong with online passes. Publishers aren't selling used games, retailers are... so it only makes sense that they try to make something off them on the back end for games that have online portions, since the used game buyer isn't actually supporting them.

Timstuff

Yes, and that example is also poor. Reselling tickets is a huge source of controversy and has been illegal at times. Also, there isn't a store you can go to that sells nothing but used tickets. And those tickets won't be worth anything in 5 years like a video game will be to someone.

It sucks but it combats Piracy.

It'll be bad for me if I buy Bad Company 2 used but It won't be so bad if I buy Bad Company 2 new.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]See my above sport stadium example.Timstuff

seats don't use power the way servers do. and basketball games don't last forever

please stop with the faulty analogies

they're selling a license for you to utilise the online services of the game. it's not in their interest, due to the market, to start charging subscription fees (unless it's an mmo) - they would sell less.

[QUOTE="dog_dirt"]

why do gamers find it so wrong that publisher want to make a profit from there games they spend years making.

people say 'oh it just greedy devs trying to milk every last $ out of there customers' so how much is it ok for them to make. at what point does thier profit become offensive to you.

the fact of the matter is that it only the online part you don't get if you buy second hand. you still get the full single player to play. the multiplayer is something that has an on going cost to the developer if they intend to support it with updates and patches. why should they give that support to people that are not there customers.

if your so desperate to save £5 off the cost of a game then fine, and lets face it the saving from buying used is never a great saving if you shop around on the internet then you can easy find deals that rival the second hand price.

but the developer has no obligation to you at all they do not owe you anything.

AmnesiaHaze

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="DerpyMcDerp"]

I agree with online passes, places like Gamestop are killing the video games industry.

Timstuff

I agree, its such a shame that console gamers are destroying their gaming futures.

Is "destroying" our future really that much worse than destroying our past?

BAN THIS FILTH!

Seriously, people... What are we supposed to do when a game is no longer being manufactured, and we still want to own a copy of it? The used market is good because it ensures that all games will be available to buy, sell, trade, and play at any given time. If publishers had their way, every game would be exactly $60 forever, you can only buy a license as a digital download, and each license is permanantly tied to your DNA so no-one can use it except for you. And if they decide to take it off of their online store, too bad, you should have bought it when it first came out.

You may say that used games are robbing our future, but eliminating used games is is going to cause our future to have no history for us to enjoy. Used games will always exist, because there are billions of them out there already that the publishers can't take away, and the sale and trade of those games is always going to compete with the sale of new games on some level. Be thankful that the used game market exists, because it encourages publishers to make games that are worth keeping rather than selling, and it encourages them to make sure that they are worth the $60 asking fee that they ask for.

These are the things you guys are missing here.

If people have enough money for a new car they get one, whereas used cars are much older and cheaper and there is little to nothing in between. If someone has 20,000 bucks to buy a car there not gonna get a used one, if someone has 3,000 they will get an old used car. If that 20,000 dollar car was returned the next day and sold for 18,000 and 100% of the profits went to the salsemen then it would be a problem but that does not happen in that industry.

The sales of very old out of production games does not harm or bother the gaming industry one bit, they have no problem with this. the problem is people returning a game within the week it was released, given 15 bucks for it, and then it goes back on the shelf for 44.99. If you could buy a 3 day old used car for 18,000 and right next to it is a brand new one for 20,000 then almost everyone would buy the 18,000 used and car manufactors would FREAK OUT, big time. It would cause there industry to crash, especially if the employees were like gamestop employees and told by the management to push for the used all day every day to make as much of the profit as possible. Even just from a former gamestop manager and customer standpoint we should not like the way they do business, if they gave you 30 when you returned a new game and then sold it for 34.99 then it wouldnt be so evil and greedy, but they do it shamelessly and they really need to be called out, its worse than pirateing software imo.

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

seats don't use power the way servers do. and basketball games don't last forever

please stop with the faulty analogies

Firebird-5

they're selling a license for you to utilise the online services of the game. it's not in their interest, due to the market, to start charging subscription fees (unless it's an mmo) - they would sell less.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]They should just come clean and charge subscription fees then, because there's nothing to stop someone from playing a game online and using the servers for longer than what the publisher thinks is fair. And on top of that, you already pay a subscription fee for Xbox Live so I'm not even sure if that is actually paying for anything anymore.

Timstuff

they're selling a license for you to utilise the online services of the game. it's not in their interest, due to the market, to start charging subscription fees (unless it's an mmo) - they would sell less.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]They should just come clean and charge subscription fees then, because there's nothing to stop someone from playing a game online and using the servers for longer than what the publisher thinks is fair. And on top of that, you already pay a subscription fee for Xbox Live so I'm not even sure if that is actually paying for anything anymore.

Timstuff

they're selling a license for you to utilise the online services of the game. it's not in their interest, due to the market, to start charging subscription fees (unless it's an mmo) - they would sell less.

No they are not generally looking to con people, its gamestop who is trying to con us the customer, and the gaming companies out of as much money as they possibly can.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]They should just come clean and charge subscription fees then, because there's nothing to stop someone from playing a game online and using the servers for longer than what the publisher thinks is fair. And on top of that, you already pay a subscription fee for Xbox Live so I'm not even sure if that is actually paying for anything anymore.

Timstuff

they're selling a license for you to utilise the online services of the game. it's not in their interest, due to the market, to start charging subscription fees (unless it's an mmo) - they would sell less.

the number one objective of a business is to maximise profits. don't like it? go live on the moon

It sucks but it combats Piracy.

It'll be bad for me if I buy Bad Company 2 used but It won't be so bad if I buy Bad Company 2 new.

LegatoSkyheart

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I agree, its such a shame that console gamers are destroying their gaming futures.

chrion133

Is "destroying" our future really that much worse than destroying our past?

BAN THIS FILTH!

Seriously, people... What are we supposed to do when a game is no longer being manufactured, and we still want to own a copy of it? The used market is good because it ensures that all games will be available to buy, sell, trade, and play at any given time. If publishers had their way, every game would be exactly $60 forever, you can only buy a license as a digital download, and each license is permanantly tied to your DNA so no-one can use it except for you. And if they decide to take it off of their online store, too bad, you should have bought it when it first came out.

You may say that used games are robbing our future, but eliminating used games is is going to cause our future to have no history for us to enjoy. Used games will always exist, because there are billions of them out there already that the publishers can't take away, and the sale and trade of those games is always going to compete with the sale of new games on some level. Be thankful that the used game market exists, because it encourages publishers to make games that are worth keeping rather than selling, and it encourages them to make sure that they are worth the $60 asking fee that they ask for.

These are the things you guys are missing here.

If people have enough money for a new car they get one, whereas used cars are much older and cheaper and there is little to nothing in between. If someone has 20,000 bucks to buy a car there not gonna get a used one, if someone has 3,000 they will get an old used car. If that 20,000 dollar car was returned the next day and sold for 18,000 and 100% of the profits went to the salsemen then it would be a problem but that does not happen in that industry.

The sales of very old out of production games does not harm or bother the gaming industry one bit, they have no problem with this. the problem is people returning a game within the week it was released, given 15 bucks for it, and then it goes back on the shelf for 44.99. If you could buy a 3 day old used car for 18,000 and right next to it is a brand new one for 20,000 then almost everyone would buy the 18,000 used and car manufactors would FREAK OUT, big time. Even just from a former gamestop manager and customer we should not like the way they do business, if they gave you 30 when you returned a new game and then sold it for 34.99 then it wouldnt be so evil and greedy, but they do it shamelessly and they really need to be called out, its worse than pirateing software imo.

I don't mind giving freebies to people who buy a game new, but to strip out a core element of the game that is advertised prominently on the box unless you pay up is stupid. Cheap shots like that are not going to strengthen the industry overall-- it's only going to mean that instead of selling an old game on eBay for $30, I have to sell it for $20 since no-one will buy it for $30 if it doesn't have the online pass. At best, this is a sidestepping of the issue, and at worst, an attack against consumer freedom.

[QUOTE="Timstuff"][QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

they're selling a license for you to utilise the online services of the game. it's not in their interest, due to the market, to start charging subscription fees (unless it's an mmo) - they would sell less.

Firebird-5

the number one objective of a business is to maximise profits. don't like it? go live on the moon

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]In other words, it's all about seeing how far they can bend over the customer before they realize something nasty is about to happen to their hindquarters.AmnesiaHaze

the number one objective of a business is to maximise profits. don't like it? go live on the moon

[QUOTE="chrion133"]

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]

Is "destroying" our future really that much worse than destroying our past?

BAN THIS FILTH!

Seriously, people... What are we supposed to do when a game is no longer being manufactured, and we still want to own a copy of it? The used market is good because it ensures that all games will be available to buy, sell, trade, and play at any given time. If publishers had their way, every game would be exactly $60 forever, you can only buy a license as a digital download, and each license is permanantly tied to your DNA so no-one can use it except for you. And if they decide to take it off of their online store, too bad, you should have bought it when it first came out.

You may say that used games are robbing our future, but eliminating used games is is going to cause our future to have no history for us to enjoy. Used games will always exist, because there are billions of them out there already that the publishers can't take away, and the sale and trade of those games is always going to compete with the sale of new games on some level. Be thankful that the used game market exists, because it encourages publishers to make games that are worth keeping rather than selling, and it encourages them to make sure that they are worth the $60 asking fee that they ask for.

Timstuff

These are the things you guys are missing here.

If people have enough money for a new car they get one, whereas used cars are much older and cheaper and there is little to nothing in between. If someone has 20,000 bucks to buy a car there not gonna get a used one, if someone has 3,000 they will get an old used car. If that 20,000 dollar car was returned the next day and sold for 18,000 and 100% of the profits went to the salsemen then it would be a problem but that does not happen in that industry.

The sales of very old out of production games does not harm or bother the gaming industry one bit, they have no problem with this. the problem is people returning a game within the week it was released, given 15 bucks for it, and then it goes back on the shelf for 44.99. If you could buy a 3 day old used car for 18,000 and right next to it is a brand new one for 20,000 then almost everyone would buy the 18,000 used and car manufactors would FREAK OUT, big time. Even just from a former gamestop manager and customer we should not like the way they do business, if they gave you 30 when you returned a new game and then sold it for 34.99 then it wouldnt be so evil and greedy, but they do it shamelessly and they really need to be called out, its worse than pirateing software imo.

I don't mind giving freebies to people who buy a game new, but to strip out a core element of the game that is advertised prominently on the box unless you pay up is stupid. Cheap shots like that are not going to strengthen the industry overall-- it's only going to mean that instead of selling an old game on eBay for $30, I have to sell it for $20 since no-one will buy it for $30 if it doesn't have the online pass. At best, this is a sidestepping of the issue, and at worst, an attack against consumer freedom.

I was a manager at Electronis boutique, Game Crazy, and Gamestop and together have about 6 years experience, So I can tell you factually that even when the economy is great, over 90% of game store customers buy the used for 44.99 over the new for 49.99. It does not take much to talk people into saving money. The pressure from upper management for employees to push used game sales as hard as humanly possible 100% of the time is pretty scary stuff, especially when almost everyone thinks when they get the job that its gonna be all about having fun. Its not. Its about stealing as much money from customers by giving them the lowest, and ripping off the game developers by selling there brand new games for maximum profit. This comes from shareholders and upper management that do not care about video games or us the gamers, only there profits. They are only following the human condition of greed in the free market like any company, but please understand from our perspective, the gamers, they are evil.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]In other words, it's all about seeing how far they can bend over the customer before they realize something nasty is about to happen to their hindquarters.AmnesiaHaze

the number one objective of a business is to maximise profits. don't like it? go live on the moon

i'm speaking realisticly. the thing is, publishers are so worried about their quarterly reports that they don't bother building any kind of great relationship with the customer. it's one of the reasons i consider valve to be so successful, because they aren't publicly traded.

it's just a fact of life that companies will do whatever they can to maximise profits. we've got someone talking about economics here, they should realise that the number one priority for a business is to... maximise profits.

100% agreed. The online pass is a joke. I hear the same complaint every time too, "but the developers need the money". What percent of every game sell actually goes to the developer - about 10 percent (Eurogamer). You'd be better off buying the game used, saving $30, and then sending $10 of it to the actual developer. I don't understand how the company can feel justified to lock out a product when someone paid $60 for it - even if that someone sold the game. I don't understand how the game industry is the only exception to the rule, while everything else in life can be resold without costing the second hand user. It really continues how **** this generation has become in terms of these passes, DLC, and micro transactions. I can only imagine how bad it will get ten years from now. white_sox