What is your opinion on this generation's "Online Pass" for MP

The only thing that makes me laugh is its only the games that sell millions of copies that do it. I.E the ones that don't even need the extra money. Smart business though. 6matt6

Wrong. Those games that sell millions are usually the ones that have the highest budget and need to sell in the millions to turn a profit.

They get launched with huge marketing campaigns so they can be more sure that they will sell so well.

Since I buy all of my games new anyway, not a single f*** is given.

You won't be saying if someday by chance you want to play an EA game online but there are no unsealed copies anywhere.rasengan2552

Yes I would be, because I'd buy the online pass if I really wanted to play the game online. And honestly, at the price I get used games, I'm still paying a little bit less than I would be if I bought it sealed.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that buying a used game for $58 is not the right thing to do when the $60 new copy is right there next to it on the shelf.

However, surely someone isn't in the wrong to sell their game collection on Craig's list when they're getting ready to move into a smaller place, and if it stands to reason that it isn't wrong for them to sell the collection, then it can't be wrong for someone else to buy that same collection. It might be a little unfair in a capitalistic sense to the developer that multiple people are enjoying their work while they are only getting paid once, but no one is doing anything wrong, ethically, legally, or in any other sense.

Gamestop's model of selling used games they buy for a pitance and turning around and re-selling them for a barely-less-than-new premium is the enemy, not used games themselves.

Seiki_sands

I'm not saying it's wrong to buy and sell used games. I'm perfectly fine with it. Just like I'm perfectly fine with a game company requiring online passes so that used game buyers HAVE to pay near the same price as the rest of us.

GameStop's insulting trade-in policy is an entirely different discussion.

So you don't think people should be able to try a game's multiplayer? That doesn't help the developer with anything except fattening their walletsCasualMike

Where did you get that from my post? Where did what I think about demos even come into this?

What I think about demos has nothing to do with this issue. If a game company doesn't give a demo of their game, there's a chance I may not buy it unless I'm convinced it will be a good game. If they do, good on them. Where does that tie into online passes?

[QUOTE="Seiki_sands"]

[QUOTE="SW__Troll"]

I think it's mostly ok.

The justification for it is that developers are artificially decreasing the value of a used game which SHOULD be the case. There should be incentive for you to buy new whereas before online passes a used copy functioned 100% exactly like a new copy (assuming it wasn't damaged).

SW__Troll

It's not an incentive to buy new, it's a disincentive to buy used.

I think many people would be very happy to accept incentives to buy new, which would be bonuses such as bundle coupons for other software, future early access to betas, certain kinds of packaging that likely won't be resold like cloth maps, etc.

As long as anything can be bought used it will. I don't care how much content is included in a game, or how high the metacritic score is, you will ALWAYS find used versions of those games, and developers realize this.

Oh sure if a developer only survived off day one sales then online passes would be a joke, but plenty of games go on to sell months, or years after release.

Yes, there will always be used copies. The purpose of incentives is to attract more new sales up front, not to discourage used sales down the road.

Hopefully, publishers aren't seriously trying to stamp out used games altogether by doing this as that would be short-sighted and probably not even in their own interest.

While used games in one sense represent competition, they also represent cash moving into the hands of gamers, since the sellers are obviously gamers or they wouldn't own the games in the first place. They also represent a way to keep some poorer gamers invested in the industry, making them more likely to be potential customers down the road when they have disposable income.

Whereas online passes will often be received as a nasty surprise by buyers of used games, eventually leading some to seek entertainment elsewhere for fear of being continually cheated by game companies.

For online, don't care. It shouldn't block single-player content though.

Slashkice

[QUOTE="Seiki_sands"]

I'm sympathetic to the idea that buying a used game for $58 is not the right thing to do when the $60 new copy is right there next to it on the shelf.

However, surely someone isn't in the wrong to sell their game collection on Craig's list when they're getting ready to move into a smaller place, and if it stands to reason that it isn't wrong for them to sell the collection, then it can't be wrong for someone else to buy that same collection. It might be a little unfair in a capitalistic sense to the developer that multiple people are enjoying their work while they are only getting paid once, but no one is doing anything wrong, ethically, legally, or in any other sense.

Gamestop's model of selling used games they buy for a pitance and turning around and re-selling them for a barely-less-than-new premium is the enemy, not used games themselves.

airshocker

I'm not saying it's wrong to buy and sell used games. I'm perfectly fine with it. Just like I'm perfectly fine with a game company requiring online passes so that used game buyers HAVE to pay near the same price as the rest of us.

GameStop's insulting trade-in policy is an entirely different discussion.

They're not getting exactly the same thing as the rest of us, so why should they pay the same?

Presumably, unless we're speaking of GS or similar retailers of used games, they aren't getting many consumer protections buying off of Craig's List or E-Bay or at a garage sale, unlike buyers of new games, which are covered by store return policies and warranties.

They also are likely getting the product at a later date and in a continually evolving tech-based industry that means getting a product of lower standards (at least theoretically).

They also are getting used packaging, if any at all.

Love it! Hope they they require SP soon.millerlight89

[QUOTE="millerlight89"]Love it! Hope they they require SP soon.rasengan2552

[QUOTE="rasengan2552"][QUOTE="millerlight89"]Love it! Hope they they require SP soon.millerlight89

They're not getting exactly the same thing as the rest of us, so why should they pay the same?

Presumably, unless we're speaking of GS or similar retailers of used games, they aren't getting many consumer protections buying off of Craig's List or E-Bay or at a garage sale, unlike buyers of new games, which are covered by store return policies and warranties.

They also are likely getting the product at a later date and in a continually evolving tech-based industry that means getting a product of lower standards (at least theoretically).

They also are getting used packaging, if any at all.

Seiki_sands

None of that has anything to do with the content of the game, which is what I'm speaking to.

I really wanted to play Uncharted 3 and Batman AC. I was planning on buying both new. I'm gonna buy both used for really cheap once the price drops.

[QUOTE="rasengan2552"][QUOTE="millerlight89"]Love it! Hope they they require SP soon.millerlight89

Yep, let's think it through.

There's a guy, Bob, who's broke, but he's been a game consumer in the past.

There's another guy, Al, who wants to get rid of his game to make a bit of money

1. Bob buys a game from Al because Bob can't afford a new game. Bob still keeps his gaming habit going, and Al, who is obviously a gamer or he wouldn't be selling games, might use Bob's money to buy a new game, or to offset an expense that will allow him to buy a new game later.

Or...

2. Bob falls out of his gaming hobby because he can't afford it, perhaps never to return as a customer.Al gets no money and gets stuck with a game he doesn't want.

If I'm a publisher, which of these two scenarios do I want to happen?

I really wanted to play Uncharted 3 and Batman AC. I was planning on buying both new. I'm gonna buy both used for really cheap once the price drops.

jdc6305

Don't be a tard. I mean renting games and trying the multiplayer. Not demosCasualMike

I don't read minds, slick. Be a little more respectful next time, though.

I really wanted to play Uncharted 3 and Batman AC. I was planning on buying both new. I'm gonna buy both used for really cheap once the price drops.

jdc6305

[QUOTE="Seiki_sands"]

They're not getting exactly the same thing as the rest of us, so why should they pay the same?

Presumably, unless we're speaking of GS or similar retailers of used games, they aren't getting many consumer protections buying off of Craig's List or E-Bay or at a garage sale, unlike buyers of new games, which are covered by store return policies and warranties.

They also are likely getting the product at a later date and in a continually evolving tech-based industry that means getting a product of lower standards (at least theoretically).

They also are getting used packaging, if any at all.

airshocker

None of that has anything to do with the content of the game, which is what I'm speaking to.

Yet it is part of what we buy when we buy a game.

You seemed concerned with making used buyers "pay what the rest of us pay," but they are not getting what we are for their money, so why should they have to pay that amount, that is my question? They may be getting the same video game content, which would be fine if we are speaking of digital downloads, but we're not.

It's inconvenient. I don't buy my games used but what if I want to go over to a friend's house or let someone borrow a game?

I hate it, that's all.

Yet it is part of what we buy when we buy a game.

You seemed concerned with making used buyers "pay what the rest of us pay," but they are not getting what we are for their money, so why should they have to pay that amount, that is my question? They may be getting the same video game content, which would be fine if we are speaking of digital downloads, but we're not.

Seiki_sands

I see your point, but it's still not an issue for me. Used buyers should still have to pay the same price I do, or very near to it.

And with that, all you ensured is that next time I'm gonna be a complete dick. G'day sir! I said good day!CasualMike

You can't be one if you're banned. ;)

[QUOTE="millerlight89"][QUOTE="rasengan2552"] "we only want you to play our game new or not at all"Seiki_sands

Yep, let's think it through.

There's a guy, Bob, who's broke, but he's been a game consumer in the past.

There's another guy, Al, who wants to get rid of his game to make a bit of money

1. Bob buys a game from Al because Bob can't afford a new game. Bob still keeps his gaming habit going, and Al, who is obviously a gamer or he wouldn't be selling games, might use Bob's money to buy a new game.

Or...

2. Bob falls out of his gaming hobby because he can't afford it, perhaps never to return as a customer.Al gets no money and gets stuck with a game he doesn't want.

If I'm a publisher, which of these two scenarios do I want to happen?

[QUOTE="CasualMike"]And with that, all you ensured is that next time I'm gonna be a complete dick. G'day sir! I said good day!airshocker

You can't be one if you're banned. ;)

[QUOTE="jdc6305"]

I really wanted to play Uncharted 3 and Batman AC. I was planning on buying both new. I'm gonna buy both used for really cheap once the price drops.

CasualMike

Its unfortunate but at the same time expected.. Its only a matter of time,, probably next gen, when developers will tie cdkeys to accounts for the consoles.. Meaning games after the cdkey is registered cannot be traded in or borrowed.. This plan has basically been extremely effective on services like Steam and Battle.net on the PC. I would be ok with it if in turn meant that games would be cheaper retail wise, and there weren't so many shameless DLC's..

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="rasengan2552"][QUOTE="millerlight89"]Love it! Hope they they require SP soon.millerlight89

These companies can keep their lousy online pass system, I recently got BF3 new just by trading in 2 old games that I platinumed anyways lol. I'm sure that makes EA sick to their stomach that somebody can walk into Gamestop and pickup their newly shipped game just by trading in a few old games toward it.rasengan2552

[QUOTE="rasengan2552"]These companies can keep their lousy online pass system, I recently got BF3 new just by trading in 2 old games that I platinumed anyways lol. I'm sure that makes EA sick to their stomach that somebody can walk into Gamestop and pickup their newly shipped game just by trading in a few old games toward it.6matt6

I never buy used so It doesn't affect me much.

Preorder bonuses and retailer exclusives are extremely annoying though.

[QUOTE="Seiki_sands"]

Yet it is part of what we buy when we buy a game.

You seemed concerned with making used buyers "pay what the rest of us pay," but they are not getting what we are for their money, so why should they have to pay that amount, that is my question? They may be getting the same video game content, which would be fine if we are speaking of digital downloads, but we're not.

airshocker

I see your point, but it's still not an issue for me. Used buyers should still have to pay the same price I do, or very near to it.

Why? If I wait for price drops and get a new game for $20, while you got it on release day for $60, I see no reason why I should pay anywhere near what you did. Waiting for a price drop is the same as buying used: you're trying to save your money and buy it cheaper. Now, buying used vs. waiting for price drops are different things regarding who ultimately gets your money, but my point still stands on why someone should have to pay around the same price you do. Almost seems selfish and childish to be honest "people better pay the same price for stuff I pay for, cry cry cry". Just saying ;)

This is largely a pointless topic. All that matters is that Online Passes exist. Whether they are "good" or "bad" is irrelevent. Game companies exist for one purpose: to make money and as much money as possible. They don't care if you are happy, sad or angry about their decisions, only that their decisions net them the most money possible. If enough customers start boycotting their products and it negatively effects revenue, then publishers will consider getting rid of them.

In all honesty, you may as well make a thread about people's opinion on any negative topic like global hunger or warfare. The answer will be the exact same: they are bad but they exist for a reason. And that's all that really needs to be said. If you are pissed enough about Online Passes, start massive boycotts of these companies because the only thing that gets their attention is money.

Choose not to pay for these passes and they will cease to exist. It's true. But everyone has to do it.LOXO7

If the passes were somehow negatively affecting the sale of new games then sure, but since it's just affecting used games then I doubt it.

Why? If I wait for price drops and get a new game for $20, while you got it on release day for $60, I see no reason why I should pay anywhere near what you did. Waiting for a price drop is the same as buying used: you're trying to save your money and buy it cheaper. Now, buying used vs. waiting for price drops are different things regarding who ultimately gets your money, but my point still stands on why someone should have to pay around the same price you do. Almost seems selfish and childish to be honest "people better pay the same price for stuff I pay for, cry cry cry". Just saying ;)

StrifeDelivery

You just answered yourself. I wasn't talking about retailer price cuts.

This is what I think about it. For MP it's not so bad if you don't care about being online, or don't have access to the internet. But if more of this continues like what they did with Batman Arkham City, then people are being screwed. It's not just the used game market that their shafting, but even people that buy the new games. Yes new games.

Alot of you are saying "well, tough luck, dosn't affect me". Good for you, clap clap. But what about the 69.8 percent of the world without the internet? They buy these games new, even pre order. But these people get screwed out of single player content now. Only a few percent of console owners actually do have internet access. Possibly 1/3rd or something like that. So if more companys take out single player content to get their buck, and screw over ppl that buy new, then it's wrong.

If you want to buy new or used, it's your choice. But if people that buy new and/or used, are getting screwed on content, then it's gone to far. Feel for those fellow gamers that are out there getting screwed for buying new games without net. And feel for those gamers that don't have the buck to buy new all the time, and consider gameing as a h/c hobby.

Barf Ball out.