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_soxI'd like to know what idiot came up with the term "microtransaction" anyway. A microtransaction is handing my little cousin a quarter so he can get some candy out of the vending machine. If I am paying $15 to unlock costumes on the Street Fighter IV disc, the only thing "micro" about it is the value.
Let's talk straight about used games and online passes for a moment...
This topic is locked from further discussion.
you're speaking from a company standpoint ... but unless you profit from it you should be on our side , the side of the consumers , or do you enjoy being ripped off ? seems so[QUOTE="AmnesiaHaze"]
[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]
the number one objective of a business is to maximise profits. don't like it? go live on the moon
Firebird-5
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.
there are different ways how to maximize profits , this is just a cheap one and pisses me off , they could charge a "hidden" extra dollar on each new game and make the same profit without anyone noticing a huge difference , but it seems they are testing how far they can go with ripping off people before they start boycotting[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]
[QUOTE="AmnesiaHaze"] you're speaking from a company standpoint ... but unless you profit from it you should be on our side , the side of the consumers , or do you enjoy being ripped off ? seems so
AmnesiaHaze
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.
there are different ways how to maximize profits , this is just a cheap one and pisses me off , they could charge a "hidden" extra dollar on each new game and make the same profit without anyone noticing a huge difference , but it seems they are testing how far they can go with ripping off people before they start boycottingi'm not the business strategist of activision, you know. they care about one thing: boosting those short term profits so it looks great on the reports
Same here. I can't blame the developers for trying to get a little something out of all those used game sales. If they'd give the publisher a couple bucks for every used game they sell it wouldn't be so bad, but they make a killing off of it and the devs don't get squat. Personally, I like to be able to sell my games in when I get tired of them, but I prefer to sell on eBay where I can actually get some money back for it.I agree with online passes, places like Gamestop are killing the video games industry.
DerpyMcDerp
[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]
[QUOTE="AmnesiaHaze"] you're speaking from a company standpoint ... but unless you profit from it you should be on our side , the side of the consumers , or do you enjoy being ripped off ? seems so
AmnesiaHaze
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.
there are different ways how to maximize profits , this is just a cheap one and pisses me off , they could charge a "hidden" extra dollar on each new game and make the same profit without anyone noticing a huge difference , but it seems they are testing how far they can go with ripping off people before they start boycottingThe thing is, they're being sneaky about it right now. There's no warning on the box, and a lot of the games they've done it to have been "safe" games that don't get sold off as quickly. If things go too far though, people will either complain about it, or like the narratives of oh-so-much anime hentai, they realize that it's actually a pleasant surprise they didn't know they wanted until the publishers were ramming them with it. Judging by some of the responses in this thread, a lot of people are in the latter camp.
combat piracy how ? piracy is not involved into the reselling process , it will maybe increase piracy even more because you get the same for free with piracywhich you get when buying second hand (single player without possibility to play online)[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]
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.
AmnesiaHaze
Call it what you will be the online pass will just slow the Pirates down if all they wanted was a free game for Online.
Heck if Developers want to combat against the Used Game Market then that's their problem because there will always be used games, and if they want to get paid from Used Games then so be it, They worked long and hard for those games.
I love the irony of EA being one of the head publishers of this too, considering how many servers they have already turned off this generation. white_sox
no point keeping them on if no one's playing. who cares about shootans XII servers? the bf1942 servers are still up... because there are still players
I love the irony of EA being one of the head publishers of this too, considering how many servers they have already turned off this generation. white_soxYeah, but they were a bunch of old ass sports games. Who was still playing those? It's still pretty ironic, though.
Every industry has a 2nd hand market, video games shouldnt be the exception so devs should get their head out of the asses and figure out different solutions, they just put blame on the easiest thing to put blame on. Heres a thought, figure out a way to produce games at a lower cost to yourself. Easier said than done but its better than freaking out about piracy etc and creating all sorts of hoops for the consumer to jump through.
combat piracy how ? piracy is not involved into the reselling process , it will maybe increase piracy even more because you get the same for free with piracywhich you get when buying second hand (single player without possibility to play online)[QUOTE="AmnesiaHaze"]
[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]
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
Call it what you will be the online pass will just slow the Pirates down if all they wanted was a free game for Online.
Heck if Developers want to combat against the Used Game Market then that's their problem because there will always be used games, and if they want to get paid from Used Games then so be it, They worked long and hard for those games.
do you really think that pirates would bother to buy online passes for theyr downloaded games ? :D :D they just pirate another game without itEvery industry has a 2nd hand market, video games shouldnt be the exception so devs should get their head out of the asses and figure out different solutions, they just put blame on the easiest thing to put blame on. Heres a thought, figure out a way to produce games at a lower cost to yourself. Easier said than done but its better than freaking out about piracy etc and creating all sorts of hoops for the consumer to jump through.
bri360
how would you plan on doing that? use lower quality outsourcing? cut labour? lower wages? any way would cause a ****storm
If I buy season's tickets for a baseball game, and then I decide after 3 games that I don't want the rest, is it wrong for me to sell the remaining tickets to my friends? Technically I am making money back from the tickets and the stadium doesn't get a dime of it, but my friends still get to sit in the seat that I'm not going to use. The thing is, the seat was already paid for when I bought the tickets, so it doesn't matter who is sitting in it, as long as it's only one person at a time. If the stadium is designed to house 10,000 people, 10,000 people have bought tickets, and 10,000 people are sitting in the stadium, then it all works out.[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
You are selling tickets that the original seller no longer offers. Scalpers do this all the time, although I believe scalping may be technically illegal. This analogy doesn't work because the tickets are a fixed amount that, once sold, are no longer the concern of the seller.
I don't think it's wrong to sell your used games, or to buy used games for that matter. However, you can't just call shenanigans on the publisher. Online passes are just that, passes for the online portion of the game. These aren't one time use codes that unlock the SP portion of the game. Why should a publisher provide you with an on going service you haven't paid for.
Online passes are just that, passes for the online portion of the game. These aren't one time use codes that unlock the SP portion of the game. Why should a publisher provide you with an on going service you haven't paid for.
Pug-Nasty
Because someone playing a new copy is identical to someone playing a used copy. If I buy Halo: Reach new there's one more multiplayer user for that title, but I lose that ability if I sell it or give it away. It doesn't matter whether that copy of Halo: Reach has one owner or a thousand, there's still only one person it online at any one time.
You can argue that online passes don't affect single player but that's beside the point when there are an ever-increasing number of single player-focussed games shipping with single-use DLC codes. Some games (e.g. Mass Effect 2) have the single-use code double as a gateway for additional "free" DLC later on. This harms the core experience of a single player-focussed game in the same way that online passes harm the core experience of a multiplayer-focussed game.
When you buy any other physical good you are free to resell it, and anyone would scoff at the suggestion that the original manufacturer should get a cut of any resales. Publishers want to be able to make a living? Big deal, so does every other manufacturer of physical goods.
What makes video games special???
"But it was paid for by the initial buyer"
So is a pirated game, the game was paid for by the initial buyer yet in both situations the developer gets no money from the transfer. And what is worse is that the developers are forced to pay money to keep the online service for people who didn't even pay the developers money.
"But it was paid for by the initial buyer"
So is a pirated game, the game was paid for by the initial buyer yet in both situations the developer gets no money from the transfer. And what is worse is that the developers are forced to pay money to keep the online service for people who didn't even pay the developers money.
Vesica_Prime
Your argument is flawed; pirated copies increase the burden on an online service but used copies cannot do so.
If I buy Halo: Reach new and play it online regularly until they take the servers down that's one player burdening the servers.
If I buy Halo: Reach new and sell it and it ends up being bought and played and sold hundreds or thousands of times over until they take the servers down that's one player burdening the servers.
Either way, one copy of the game--a totally legal copy I might add--is being played online by only one person at any one time.
no it isn't a pirated game, your logic is skewed, it's a human right to sell on the things we no longer use, tthat's like saying all used cars and houses are 'pirated' because the intitial car/house builder doesn't get a cut,lol"But it was paid for by the initial buyer"
So is a pirated game, the game was paid for by the initial buyer yet in both situations the developer gets no money from the transfer. And what is worse is that the developers are forced to pay money to keep the online service for people who didn't even pay the developers money.
Vesica_Prime
i don't play online so they won't see a penny from me for online passes, i agree with the TC, they make games with extremely short single player campaigns and expect us to pay 40 quid for them which is a rip-off in the first place, now they want to charge people who cannot afford to buy games brand new an extra fee to play online, ultimately it's the developers who will suffer,people will stop buying preowned games that require an online pass so shops will start refusing to take these games back like they did with gamecube games with one shot online codes last gen (phantasy satr 2), i know a hell of a lot of people who won't bother buying new games if they can't be traded in, i buy all the top titles day one brand new but i couldn't afford to game if i couldn't trade them in, most people i know are in the same boat, they will just mod there consoles and start piratting games.delta3074the PC has no used game market and that does ok
If I buy season's tickets for a baseball game, and then I decide after 3 games that I don't want the rest, is it wrong for me to sell the remaining tickets to my friends? Technically I am making money back from the tickets and the stadium doesn't get a dime of it, but my friends still get to sit in the seat that I'm not going to use. The thing is, the seat was already paid for when I bought the tickets, so it doesn't matter who is sitting in it, as long as it's only one person at a time. If the stadium is designed to house 10,000 people, 10,000 people have bought tickets, and 10,000 people are sitting in the stadium, then it all works out.[QUOTE="Timstuff"]
[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.
Pug-Nasty
You are selling tickets that the original seller no longer offers. Scalpers do this all the time, although I believe scalping may be technically illegal. This analogy doesn't work because the tickets are a fixed amount that, once sold, are no longer the concern of the seller.
I don't think it's wrong to sell your used games, or to buy used games for that matter. However, you can't just call shenanigans on the publisher. Online passes are just that, passes for the online portion of the game. These aren't one time use codes that unlock the SP portion of the game. Why should a publisher provide you with an on going service you haven't paid for.
because the service was already payed for by the initial buyer, if somebody sells you something you should be able to get the same use from it as they did.[QUOTE="delta3074"]i don't play online so they won't see a penny from me for online passes, i agree with the TC, they make games with extremely short single player campaigns and expect us to pay 40 quid for them which is a rip-off in the first place, now they want to charge people who cannot afford to buy games brand new an extra fee to play online, ultimately it's the developers who will suffer,people will stop buying preowned games that require an online pass so shops will start refusing to take these games back like they did with gamecube games with one shot online codes last gen (phantasy satr 2), i know a hell of a lot of people who won't bother buying new games if they can't be traded in, i buy all the top titles day one brand new but i couldn't afford to game if i couldn't trade them in, most people i know are in the same boat, they will just mod there consoles and start piratting games.dog_dirtthe PC has no used game market and that does okyes it does actually, thats where you are falt out wrong, you can even trade in digital copies of games now dude.
[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]no it isn't a pirated game, your logic is skewed, it's a human right to sell on the things we no longer use, tthat's like saying all used cars and houses are 'pirated' because the intitial car/house builder doesn't get a cut,loland nobody is stopping you buying and selling you second hand games. but what the dev now won't do is provide an online service for people who did not buy there game."But it was paid for by the initial buyer"
So is a pirated game, the game was paid for by the initial buyer yet in both situations the developer gets no money from the transfer. And what is worse is that the developers are forced to pay money to keep the online service for people who didn't even pay the developers money.
delta3074
Your argument is flawed; pirated copies increase the burden on an online service but used copies cannot do so.
If I buy Halo: Reach new and play it online regularly until they take the servers down that's one player burdening the servers.
If I buy Halo: Reach new and sell it and it ends up being bought and played and sold hundreds or thousands of times over until they take the servers down that's one player burdening the servers.
Either way, one copy of the game--a totally legal copy I might add--is being played online by only one person at any one time.
garrett_daniels
Firstly pirated copies cannot play on the official/legitimate servers, they play on pirated servers. So therefor the original copy of the pirated game (the legal copy) is the only copy to access official servers, so should piracy then proceed since only one copy (the legal copy) can play on official servers legitimately at all times?
no it isn't a pirated game, your logic is skewed, it's a human right to sell on the things we no longer use, tthat's like saying all used cars and houses are 'pirated' because the intitial car/house builder doesn't get a cut,loldelta3074
I never said "used copies are pirated games" way to put words in my mouth bro. And using used cars and used houses doesn't put stress on the original builders as they do not need to fork out money to maintain the product unlike game developers and their online services.
[QUOTE="DerpyMcDerp"]If you believe that, well, I can make you a tinfoil hat if you want. I'm a little amused that this topic is so popular. Surprised, even. The amount of hypocrisy that comes into it, for instance, is terrible. Not that anyone here has even suggested it but I've seen people who talk about how terrible used games are but then go out and rent games or movies. They'll buy things at yard sales. Netflix, blockbuster, gamefly, stuff like that. As far as I'm aware, none of the money from these things go back to the developers. Are they terrible, too? People just don't understand the used Market and are too quick to vilify game stop because, oh, they've said something about a console you like or because some peon said something you don't agree with (because god forbid people in retail not be infallible deities). But looking past all that, realize that Game Stop only ever gets 10% off each new game. That's not very sustainable all things considered. The Used Market is the boon that keeps their stores open and their business going. The thing about used games is that, unlike piracy, the ratio is 1 to 1. What I mean to say is that if little johnny buys a game and sells it back, he gives up his privilege to play that game. Only one person can now play it, ie the person that buys it used, and once he sells it back, he loses the privilege. A pirated game, on the other hand, little jimmy obtains his copy shares it with everyone he knows and thensome. Which is why people who compare used games to pirated games are lunatics. With a used game, too, someone had to have bought the game new and thus given the developer their dues. With a pirated game? Who's to say someone didn't snatch something from the assembly line? Another huge reason why people always get mad at game stop is that they'll sell a game back expect to make big bucks only to get half back if that and then see game stop turn around and raise the price. I would sympathize except I'm not a dolt and I understand how it works. Watch Pawn Stars. You'll see people come in with neat things where an expert says the item is worth such-and-such and then the person expects to be handed such-and-such but are shocked when that offer is shot down. Why? Because a pawn shop is a business. A BUSINESS. Learn that word, please. In Pawn shops, the store needs to be able to sell the item and turn a profit. They can't just buy an item for its appraised value and hope to god someone is willing to pay more than the appraised value. That's stupid. Plus, keep in mind there's no guarantee that anyone anytime soon will come in for that item; the item could sit on that shelf for months or even years. So until that item is sold, they're down money. Same with used games. Say a new game is 60 and you buy it but don't like it or beat it or whatever. You sell it back but only get 30 dollars. Insult to injury (or so it seems), they sell it for 50. Before you seethe like a damn fool, realize that at the end of the day you only technically lose 30 on that game (having gotten 30 back). Also realize that they only make 20 off that ( Subtract the amount they had to give you, ie 30, from the amount they are selling which leaves them with 20). So they're not getting back as much as you think they are, assuming that game even sells. There's no guarantee the demand is high enough and it is possible a game will sit there for a while. There has to be worth to this risk, you see? And if a game sits on that shelf too long, the price is changed to reflect supply, demand, quality, and rarity. They could, actually, lose money.good post, 100% agreeI agree with online passes, places like Gamestop are killing the video games industry.
AncientDozer
"But it was paid for by the initial buyer"
So is a pirated game, the game was paid for by the initial buyer yet in both situations the developer gets no money from the transfer. And what is worse is that the developers are forced to pay money to keep the online service for people who didn't even pay the developers money.
Piracy is shared content. Not sold to someone else.[QUOTE="garrett_daniels"]
Your argument is flawed; pirated copies increase the burden on an online service but used copies cannot do so.
If I buy Halo: Reach new and play it online regularly until they take the servers down that's one player burdening the servers.
If I buy Halo: Reach new and sell it and it ends up being bought and played and sold hundreds or thousands of times over until they take the servers down that's one player burdening the servers.
Either way, one copy of the game--a totally legal copy I might add--is being played online by only one person at any one time.
Vesica_Prime
Firstly pirated copies cannot play on the official/legitimate servers, they play on pirated servers. So therefor the original copy of the pirated game (the legal copy) is the only copy to access official servers, so should piracy then proceed since only one copy (the legal copy) can play on official servers legitimately at all times?
no it isn't a pirated game, your logic is skewed, it's a human right to sell on the things we no longer use, tthat's like saying all used cars and houses are 'pirated' because the intitial car/house builder doesn't get a cut,loldelta3074
I never said "used copies are pirated games" way to put words in my mouth bro. And using used cars and used houses doesn't put stress on the original builders as they do not need to fork out money to maintain the product unlike game developers and their online services.
a service which was already payed for by the initial buyer so the developer isn't actually missing out, like the poster above said, it's a 1 to 1 ratio, the person selling the game no longer has the right to play that game online so the person buying the game preowned is just moving into the online spot the original buyer just vacated, it's not an 'extra' gamer on the server so it doesn't increase the server load or put extra 'stress' on the devaloper at all.That's bogus and you know it. Pirated games can and will play on main servers. You might be getting confused with private servers for MMOs.Fine, you didn't say it was but many people erroneously compare used games with pirated games. Or suggest that there's some TERRIBLE stress on the "original builders", as you put it, when there's really not.
AncientDozer
Really? I can't just willy-nilly copypaste Counter-Strike: Source, Team Fortress 2, Unreal Tournament 2004, Battlefield: Badcompany 2 or Call of Duty: Black Ops onto a friend's computer and have him play on the official servers the same time I do because I need a CD-key to play on the official servers, and only one CD-key can be used by one person at a time. I'd have to crack it and play on a cracked server.
And terrible stress? It cost the developers money to maintain online servers, used games give no money to the developers. Buying new games gives money to the developers.
[QUOTE="AncientDozer"]That's bogus and you know it. Pirated games can and will play on main servers. You might be getting confused with private servers for MMOs.
Fine, you didn't say it was but many people erroneously compare used games with pirated games. Or suggest that there's some TERRIBLE stress on the "original builders", as you put it, when there's really not.
Vesica_Prime
Really? I can't just willy-nilly copypaste Counter-Strike: Source, Team Fortress 2, Unreal Tournament 2004, Battlefield: Badcompany 2 or Call of Duty: Black Ops onto a friend's computer and play on the official servers because I need a CD-key to play on the official servers, and only one CD-key can be used by one person at a time. I'd have to crack it and play on a cracked server.
And terrible stress? It cost the developers money to maintain online servers, used games give no money to the developers. Buying new games gives money to the developers.
you really don't get it do you? there IS NO EXTRA STESS ON THE DEVELOPERS SERVERS, the guy that buys the game preowned is only taking up space that the guy that sold the game has vacated, a space that was alredy payed for buy the initual buyer, online codes are getting people to pay TWICE for the same server slot,lol[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"][QUOTE="AncientDozer"]That's bogus and you know it. Pirated games can and will play on main servers. You might be getting confused with private servers for MMOs.
Fine, you didn't say it was but many people erroneously compare used games with pirated games. Or suggest that there's some TERRIBLE stress on the "original builders", as you put it, when there's really not.
AncientDozer
Really? I can't just willy-nilly copypaste Counter-Strike: Source, Team Fortress 2, Unreal Tournament 2004, Battlefield: Badcompany 2 or Call of Duty: Black Ops onto a friend's computer and play on the official servers because I need a CD-key to play on the official servers, and only one CD-key can be used by one person at a time. I'd have to crack it and play on a cracked server.
And terrible stress? It cost the developers money to maintain online servers, used games give no money to the developers. Buying new games gives money to the developers.
Are you serious? Do not know. . oh boy. I need some advil. If you're talking about "server stress" which is the most absurd argument I've ever heard, that "one person" was already paid for by the person who originally bought the copy. It's not as if he's still able to play. If Little Bo Peep buys a game new, that's +1 to the server He then sells his copy. That's -1 to the server Then Count Dooku buys that used copy, that's +1. Then Count Dooku gets his head cut off and Anakin sells it, so that's -1 Then Goku, after being brought back with the dragon balls, wans to play the game, he buys it used and that's +1 DO YOU UNDERSTAND? One copy was paid for, one copy is being used at any given time. None of the people except for Goku can still play the game so it's essentially as if he himself bought the game.he's not gonna get it,or he's just completely ignoring our argumnet,lol[QUOTE="AncientDozer"] Are you serious? Do not know. . oh boy. I need some advil. If you're talking about "server stress" which is the most absurd argument I've ever heard, that "one person" was already paid for by the person who originally bought the copy. It's not as if he's still able to play. If Little Bo Peep buys a game new, that's +1 to the server He then sells his copy. That's -1 to the server Then Count Dooku buys that used copy, that's +1. Then Count Dooku gets his head cut off and Anakin sells it, so that's -1 Then Goku, after being brought back with the dragon balls, wans to play the game, he buys it used and that's +1 DO YOU UNDERSTAND? One copy was paid for, one copy is being used at any given time. None of the people except for Goku can still play the game so it's essentially as if he himself bought the game.delta3074
Annnnnnd bandwidth isn't a one-time payment, developers continuously have to pay money and to get that money they have to sell games and get profit from said games.
But seriously, I can't go into detail because it's against the TOS to talk about, but let me tell you that CD codes? NOT AN OBSTACLE.AncientDozer
Yeah, it's easy to crack a game to play on cracked servers.
he's not gonna get it,or he's just completely ignoring our argumnet,loldelta3074
So, smug. So very smug.
Annnnnnd paying bandwidth isn't a one-time payment, developers continuously have to pay money and to get that money they have to sell games and get profit from said games.
[QUOTE="AncientDozer"] Are you serious? Do not know. . oh boy. I need some advil. If you're talking about "server stress" which is the most absurd argument I've ever heard, that "one person" was already paid for by the person who originally bought the copy. It's not as if he's still able to play. If Little Bo Peep buys a game new, that's +1 to the server He then sells his copy. That's -1 to the server Then Count Dooku buys that used copy, that's +1. Then Count Dooku gets his head cut off and Anakin sells it, so that's -1 Then Goku, after being brought back with the dragon balls, wans to play the game, he buys it used and that's +1 DO YOU UNDERSTAND? One copy was paid for, one copy is being used at any given time. None of the people except for Goku can still play the game so it's essentially as if he himself bought the game.delta3074
Annnnnnd paying bandwidth isn't a one-time payment, developers continuously have to pay money and to get that money they have to sell games and get profit from said games.
But seriously, I can't go into detail because it's against the TOS to talk about, but let me tell you that CD codes? NOT AN OBSTACLE.AncientDozer
Yeah, it's easy to crack a game to play on cracked servers.
he's not gonna get it,or he's just completely ignoring our argumnet,loldelta3074
So, smug. So very smug.
delta3074
-you really don't get it do you? there IS NO EXTRA STESS ON THE DEVELOPERS SERVERS, the guy that buys the game preowned is only taking up space that the guy that sold the game has vacated, a space that was alredy payed for buy the initual buyer, online codes are getting people to pay TWICE for the same server slot,lol
Are you serious? Do not know. . oh boy. I need some advil. If you're talking about "server stress" which is the most absurd argument I've ever heard, that "one person" was already paid for by the person who originally bought the copy. It's not as if he's still able to play. If Little Bo Peep buys a game new, that's +1 to the server He then sells his copy. That's -1 to the server Then Count Dooku buys that used copy, that's +1. Then Count Dooku gets his head cut off and Anakin sells it, so that's -1 Then Goku, after being brought back with the dragon balls, wans to play the game, he buys it used and that's +1 DO YOU UNDERSTAND? One copy was paid for, one copy is being used at any given time. None of the people except for Goku can still play the game so it's essentially as if he himself bought the game.AncientDozer
Annnnnnd paying bandwidth isn't a one-time payment, developers continuously have to pay money and to get that money they have to sell games and get profit from said games.
But seriously, I can't go into detail because it's against the TOS to talk about, but let me tell you that CD codes? NOT AN OBSTACLE.AncientDozer
Yeah, it's easy to crack a game to play on cracked servers.
he's not gonna get it,or he's just completely ignoring our argumnet,loldelta3074
So, smug. So very smug.
Annnnnnd bandwidth isn't a one-time payment, developers continuously have to pay money and to get that money they have to sell games and get profit from said gamesVesica_Primewould the developer get any extra money to run the server slot if the initial buyer kept the game? NO, so i fail to see your point, they only get a one time payment for the server slot either way,lol
Theres a difference between used cars and used games. Where as 1 car may be bought twice or thrice during its lifetime used games however a used game may be rented sevetal times. Though the analogy works both ways, just as manufacturers can still get profits from selling individual parts for repairs as such, similarly games have dlcs and online passes for more profit. Both industries are different in getting their profit so I don't think they can me compared.
The important idea, however, is that people are allowed to sell a car. To another dealership, to some other guy on craigs list, et cetera. The license agreements are jokes, really, and bad ones at that because in theory, you aren't even allowed to share your game with your friends because it states you and only you can play that copy. In practice, obviously it's impossible to stop someone from doing whatever they want.AncientDozer
Well thats because you don't "own" the game according to EULA your given a "license" to use the software on our 'rented' discs.
I think from a publisher standpoint a person playing a game he did not pay for is another potential lost sale. Hence to them used gaming industry>piracy. Just goes to show how ****** the judicial system is.
Hell, Delta said it best: "would the developer get any extra money to run the server slot if the initial buyer kept the game? NO, so i fail to see your point, they only get a one time payment for the server slot either way,lol"
Also. Not only does your post not prove anything, it's also against the rules to discuss in any lengthy detail one way or the other.
AncientDozer
I never said developers would get money if a person kept a game, don't put words in my mouth. What I am saying is that the developers lost a sale as the person who bought the game bought something that 0% goes to the developers rather than a product that developers would get money from. And they need money to run the online service.
And it proves more than your post, my post actually provided examples and evidence while yours just hearsay and rumour.
And really, Vesica, using just steam to represent the whole of PC gaming is foolish. While popular, it does not encompass all of it.AncientDozer
Only one of the things from Steam, the others were from the Call of Duty series.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment