Jimquisition: Online Passes Are Bad For Everybody

[ImSkeletor]

I am NEVER going to buy another Bioware game after I got screwed over by Mass Effect 2's online pass and this is the very reason I am never going to buy Rage. I don't take kindly to a company screwing me over. And you know what? I LIKE giving the money to gamestop, they give jobs to thousands of people and I will CONTINUE SUPPORTING THEM.

 

[bombadilillo]

If you actually finance your gaming by allowing Gamestop to sodomize you with their shit trade-in prices then you are an economically illiterate moron who quite frankly shouldn't be allowed to talk about ANY consumer issues. You're wasting you're own money by going for the WORST, underline; WORST deal on the video game market, you're taking money from the publishers and developers by allowing Gamestop to sell your games for more than TWICE the price they gave you for it. And you're destroying smaller and better video game retailers by further cementing the monopoly of Gamestop.

If you're going that route then get a god damn Gamefly subssription you bell-end, it Waaaaaay fucking cheaper, and Gamefly actually pays for their games.

Or you could just, oh I dunno, shop around a bit?

In the current system it's hard for publishers to turn a profit on most AAA games, they have to sell a LOT of units to make back the money they put into the game, and by cutting the publishers out of the loop, Gamestop is forcing publishers to resort to things like online passes to turn a profit.

And if you honestly think that spending 2 minutes typing in a passcode is a major inconvenience or something to get mad over, then you're a gibbering ADD riddled five-year old and nothing you say is worth respecting.

I agree whole heartedly on the gamefly thing. People buy a 60$ game and then turn it in for a HUGE lose immediatly. They either got so little out of the game that they take the hit. Or are too stupid to rent games. I know theres a lot of stupid people out there. But most people must be getting burned.

 

[csoloist]

Blah blah blah... All this moaning is pointless. Come the next console generation used sales will be a thing of the past, so enjoy 'em while you all can.

Remember when you used to be able to buy/sell used PC games? No? There was a time, not all that long ago either. Not enough people voted with their wallets when publishers pulled all this crap the first time around, and now they know they can get away with it. This generation all the consoles have finally gone online - so come next gen brace yourselves for the shitty activation schemes that you find in modern PC titles and wave goodbye to *legit* used games.

 

[MajorDolphin]

I usually can't stand Jim, which is the point I suppose, but I 100% agree with him here.

 

[Azuaron]

snip

You've completely missed the point of my post. I'm not saying you shouldn't buy used games, I'm saying you're a liar for saying you have "no choice." So when you say things like:

Don't buy the game/s?

Defeats the purpose of enjoying the hobby in the first place

You're not technically incorrect, but you aren't addressing what I'm saying. I'm saying you have choices and you're choosing to buy used games, and I hypothesize you do so because it's easier right now for you.

Further, when you say:

Wait until the game's older and cheaper, but still buy it new?

...naaah. Not an option either. Too likely to get it spoiled in the mean time.

You're being intentionally dense. It obviously is an option, you're just choosing what is, as I said before, easiest for you at this time.

Buy 1/3 the games you normally would?

Mathematically impossible this year, I've only bought two games so far. You can't buy 1/3 of 2 games.

If I could smack you upside the head, I definitely would. You could very easily buy 1 game every year and a half. The math is very, very simple.

Anyway, if you've bought 2 games in the first 2/3 of the year, it's very reasonable to estimate you'll buy one more game before the year is done, in which case you'll have bought 3 games this year making the math even simpler (1/3 of 3).

Finally, 1/3 wasn't exactly a precise number, but more of an estimate based on buying used games for $20 and new games for $60. Actual numbers almost certainly won't reflect my estimate.

Start a pool with your friends/family and buy games together, then share them.

Considering I'm the only one who plays games in my family this would just be mooching off my parents, and I'm far too old to be doing that.

I also mentioned "friends", which don't even have to be people you actually like/know, but could just be a group on Reddit (or similar) who mails games to each other. But, once again, you still acknowledge you have a choice and you're just choosing to do otherwise, which was my only point.

Spend less money in other aspects of your life

...I need fuel to get money for anything. I need food to eat. And this...

(for instance, my mom's recently gotten into extreme couponing, and she now pays $50/month on groceries for two people.

This is the dullest thing life has to offer. Not to mention it annoys EVERYONE ELSE! Cashiers, other shoppers in line, hell I'm embarrassed and annoyed when someone I'm shopping with breaks them out.

I didn't say some of the choices wouldn't be repugnant, I said they were available. Prostitution's also an option, though I certainly wouldn't recommend it. But it's there, if you're really desperate.

You have many, many choices, you are simply choosing the easiest one for you at this moment. Don't pretend otherwise.

I'm not 'pretending' anything.

But you are. You're claiming you don't have any choices, when, really, you have near infinite choices. I've listed a few, which you've chosen not to follow. You could also liquidate all your assets, rob a bank, move to India, live like a king for a year, pirate all your games, and die in squalor. It's a choice. At least, attempting's a choice. The police will probably choose to stop you before you leave the country. Anyway, it's not one I'd personally find amenable, but it's certainly available to anyone who has enough assets to buy/steal a gun (they're cheap, just ask criminals).

I'm just minimizing the costs of my hobbies.

And here's what it all comes down to. You've chosen to buy games used because you want to minimize the cost of your hobbies and you want to play a certain number of video games a year within a certain time frame of their release dates. Good for you; I pass no judgment on that. But I do take issue to anyone who says they "have no choice" when they very clearly do.

When you're being mugged you have no choice (well, actually, you do even then; for instance, you could choose to fight back, and probably die. Certainly not a good choice, but available. You could even choose, pre-mugging, to get in shape and learn self-defense techniques, in which case you'll only maybe die, but who has time for that when I could be playing video games? ...You. You don't have time because you're playing video games. I'm certainly a model example of physical fitness. ...Anyway.)

When you're buying used games, you're choosing to buy used games. Chooooooosing.

I guess by your logic I shouldn't buy used cars, either.

Buy away. I didn't even say you shouldn't buy used games. In fact:

Now, right at this moment, I am not saying that used games shouldn't exist.

I was pretty clear I wasn't making any judgment calls on that portion of the games industry.

I applaud you for originality, yet I facepalm at the impracticality of your points. They just don't work.

They only don't work because you don't want them to work. You've chosen the currently easiest path to fuel your gaming habit. There's not anything inherently wrong or immoral or whatever in that. But saying you don't have a choice is:

1. A lie.

2. Disingenuous.

3. A lie.

I've saved this next piece for last because, honestly, it makes me a little sad, mainly because this is how most people think.

Make more money?

You say this like I've got a money press in my closet or something. Get real.

Seriously? You can't think of any ways to make more money? You can't:

1. Get another job.

2. Mow lawns.

3. Become a courier.

4. Make stuff and sell it on Etsy.

5. Start an eBay store.

6. Start a website with something to do with RC stuff (I don't know anything about it, but I'm certain there's information/parts/services/stuff you could sell; there always is.)

7. Write a novel and self-publish on Amazon.

8. Learn web development and sell your services online.

9. Start a moving business.

10. Etc..

No, I don't want a point-by-point rebuttal of why you "can't" do these things. These are examples. There's always opportunities to make more money, especially if you're just looking for $60 to buy a game. A little creativity, and suddenly you're that guy selling cupcakes out of a van in New York City by the, well, van-load.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

I always thank God for you... introducing me to your intro music
Really epic.

Also, very valid points against online passes. Although on this site you're pretty much preaching to the choir on this.

 

[42]

Just pointing out, that any american who complains about $60 games should come buy games in Australia.

Too bloody right mate. $120? pfft it costs $200 for 2 new Triple A games.

 

[kwagamon]

Whatever happened to them having launch-day DLC, and new copies came with a redeeming code for THAT? Do they still do that? I never buy games new. Because that was actually a decent idea compared to removing entire game modes unless you shell out some money and actively alienating the player instead of just offering something that doesn't automatically come with the game as a bonus for buying new. Seriously I get that it's the same basic idea, but one of the things they're removing (hint: it's the multiplayer) is actually advertised on the back of the box as a feature, even on used copies of said box, while the other is something they usually put an ad for on the back of the manual or something. With the DLC, you can buy the game used, find out about the project-$10 DLC, then go look up the content to see if it interests you then choose whether to buy it or not. With multiplayer, large amounts of players buy the game for that and nothing else so you shouldn't be actively upsetting a huge chunk of your buyers by nickel-and-diming every buck you can out of the used copies.

 

[MajorDolphin]

Fuck, people. I can't wait til this online pass bullshit comes back around and bites you supporters in the ass. Honestly, I do. I'll make sure to be around to laugh my fucking ass off and say "paying 60 bucks to unlock all the weapons and mp maps is a good thing. It helps the industry!! Me love it long time!"

Just pointing out, that any american who complains about $60 games should come buy games in Australia.

Is that the developers, publishers, retailers, the currency exchange or governments fault? Why do I get the feeling that you're being taxed out the wang on your games? Hrm, I may open a used game store in Australia if its not a currency exchange rate issue.

 

[mrc390]

Are people actually taking this seriously??

 

[Levethian]

And without online passes, there's no compensation for that - publishers don't just miss out on sales money from used sales, they get actively screwed.

The consumers that use online services without compensating the publisher will in all likelihood make up for it by purchasing sequels (and if they didn't like the game, they probably wouldn't play long enough to cause much 'load'). Bottom line - it's good press. Bigger audience equates to more potential future customers.

I do not buy for a second that the games implementing online passes are preventing people from buying games and really hurting consumers.

If the resale value of games drops $10, of course it will dissuade some people from buying too many games in the first instance.

 

[dbphreakdb]

I like to call this little lesson Gamernomics 101

I work in the software industry, and have myself done a few in house low tech games. I am also a gamer. So I can see both sides of the argument. However, I will say this first. This was rubbish.

While a 'Used Sale' might convert into a 'New Unit' moved when a sequel hits, what is to say that there will even be a sequel made. Most development studios actually use sales data to poll interest in a franchise. While I would agree that there could be a better model thought up, and several have been suggested, I categorically refuse to believe that Gamestop benefits anyone but themselves when they sell a used game.

I have a friend who is, to put it mildly, not very flush. Her son is an avid gamer. He has to trade in his games to be able to afford new ones. However, the trade in ratio is 5 used to get a decent credit for 1 new. It's generally 4 used to another used buy. And those are for top of the line, extreme interest, AAA titles.

Now, out of those 4 or 5 trade ins, GameStop makes an approximate profit of at least 200%. The game studio sees none of this. Now, let me ask you this. Would you work for free? Even if it is something you love doing, would you? I love what I do, and I don't work for free. As a matter of fact, in the flooded industry of Information Technology, my love for what I do has given me one of the best reputations in my geographical area, thus I have a loyal customer base, as well as the ability to get top dollar for my services.

All of this being said, I am not by far some 'rich person'. I make enough to pay the bills, and have enough left over to occasionally splurge buy. When I buy a video game, I buy quality, but I also buy new. It doesn't matter the age of the game. The only time I buy used, is when it is no longer available new. When I am forced to buy used, I have to ask myself whether or not that studio tanked because of the used game philosophy, or it just wasn't given a sequel because they didn't reach their target margin.

Flatly speaking, and I reiterate, that the used game industry benefits noone save for the store. It bilks money from the studios, and it cheats consumers out of their hard earned money by an artificial value depreciation by the same retail store.

So I would ask again, Mr Jim and his adamant followers of the uninformed and young crowd:

Would you work for free?

 

[Azuaron]

I believe Penny Arcade said it best when they said: news section [http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/8/25/] that day.)

If nothing else, servers and bandwidth are expensive. If you want to use a publisher's servers and bandwidth, they have a right to bloody charge you.

Here's the thing though: regardless of whether the person playing the game bought it new or used, there's a finite number of games out there that are being used. Say, for simplicity's sake, it's 100. There's 100 games sold and 100 people playing on line. I sell my copy to you. I'm not playing anymore, but you are, so there are still 100 gamers playing the game. Yes, that's grossly simplified, but all Game Stop and other companies are doing is being the middleman between two customers. Sure, we could all use craigslist to sell and buy our used games and no one would make a peep, but no one wants to go through the hassle of posting listings every time they want to sell a game, or searching the internet for a used copy of something they want.

Irrelevant. Online passes don't guard against just Gamestop, but all reselling.

As has been argued many, many times, used sales are not an issue in other media (books, CDs, movies, cars, etc.) so why games? I've yet to hear a good answer.

What I (and Penny Arcade) said isn't an indictment against the used games industry in general, but the defense of publishers using online passes. As I said somewhere else to someone else on this forum, when you buy a car new, you get the manufacturer's warranty. When you buy a car used, you don't, because the manufacturer only provides warranties to people who are actually their customers. If you want an additional service (e.g., online play with appropriate bandwidth and servers) you have to pay the people who are actually providing that service.

The bottom line is that you can't equate a used sale to a lost sale for the publisher one to one. It's just not the case. If I can't buy, say Madden 12 (just an example) used for $20, I simply will not buy it at all, period. So either way, as far as the publisher is concerned, it's a "lost sale".

Also irrelevant; I never said anything along those lines.

Furthermore, in regards to that PA strip... guess what? Either way I'm a customer of Gamestop. The publisher does not sell directly to me. They've already made their profit from the copies that GS has ordered. I've never purchased a game directly from the publisher because the industry is not set up that way. EA, THQ or whoever does not care who is buying the games, just that they are purchased.

Incorrect assessment of industry structure, basic economics, and everything said in the PA strip. In a publisher->retailer->consumer relationship, the publisher makes money from the transaction, making the consumer a customer of the publisher (even if indirectly). In a consumer->reseller->consumer relationship, the consumer is not, in any way, a customer of the publisher; the publisher sees 0 of your dollars.

Further, I'm just going to repeat this:

If nothing else, servers and bandwidth are expensive. If you want to use a publisher's servers and bandwidth, they have a right to bloody charge you.

In the case of online play, they don't care if the "lost sale" is because you bought it used or because you never bought the game at all: if you want to use their resources, you have to give them money. If you only give someone else money (Gamestop, some random guy, Amazon, etc.), you don't get to use publisher resources.

And if you want online play, you can complain to people whose profits you actually increased with your purchase (Gamestop, some random guy, Amazon, etc.) but you don't have any relationship with the publisher, so why should they care about you?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I like to call this little lesson Gamernomics 101

I work in the software industry, and have myself done a few in house low tech games. I am also a gamer. So I can see both sides of the argument. However, I will say this first. This was rubbish.

While a 'Used Sale' might convert into a 'New Unit' moved when a sequel hits, what is to say that there will even be a sequel made. Most development studios actually use sales data to poll interest in a franchise. While I would agree that there could be a better model thought up, and several have been suggested, I categorically refuse to believe that Gamestop benefits anyone but themselves when they sell a used game.

I have a friend who is, to put it mildly, not very flush. Her son is an avid gamer. He has to trade in his games to be able to afford new ones. However, the trade in ratio is 5 used to get a decent credit for 1 new. It's generally 4 used to another used buy. And those are for top of the line, extreme interest, AAA titles.

Now, out of those 4 or 5 trade ins, GameStop makes an approximate profit of at least 200%. The game studio sees none of this. Now, let me ask you this. Would you work for free? Even if it is something you love doing, would you? I love what I do, and I don't work for free. As a matter of fact, in the flooded industry of Information Technology, my love for what I do has given me one of the best reputations in my geographical area, thus I have a loyal customer base, as well as the ability to get top dollar for my services.

All of this being said, I am not by far some 'rich person'. I make enough to pay the bills, and have enough left over to occasionally splurge buy. When I buy a video game, I buy quality, but I also buy new. It doesn't matter the age of the game. The only time I buy used, is when it is no longer available new. When I am forced to buy used, I have to ask myself whether or not that studio tanked because of the used game philosophy, or it just wasn't given a sequel because they didn't reach their target margin.

Flatly speaking, and I reiterate, that the used game industry benefits noone save for the store. It bilks money from the studios, and it cheats consumers out of their hard earned money by an artificial value depreciation by the same retail store.

So I would ask again, Mr Jim and his adamant followers of the uninformed and young crowd:

Would you work for free?

No I wouldn't. However, it isn't working for free if the game was sold the first time.

First. Sale. Doctrine. Look it up.

 

[JMeganSnow]

You know, it makes me wonder, why aren't book publishers trying to put Half Priced Books out of business? They aren't getting any money for all those books people buy, sell, and trade.

 

[Levethian]

You know, it makes me wonder, why aren't book publishers trying to put Half Priced Books out of business? They aren't getting any money for all those books people buy, sell, and trade.

I think it's because gamers often use online 'services' that cost the developers money to maintain. I'd wager it's next to nothing per user, but still, it is an undeniable difference.

 

[Hitchmeister]

The point is, you DIDN'T spend $60. You bought it used and the publisher saw none of that, so screw you, you cheap bastard. Or if you did, blame the cheap bastard who's going to buy the game next after you let GameStop rip you off by giving you $5 store credit for a week-old game they're going to turn around and sell for $55. And if your precious time is being wasted, that's time you don't have to spend pointlessly bitching on the internet, so the publisher is doing the world a favor.

I say, "Thank you, EA. Please do more of this."