Jimquisition: Online Passes Are Bad For Everybody

[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!"

And I can't wait for the next console generation or the one after that when everything is cloud based and there will be no used games.

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.

It has nothing to do with taxes, games are more expensive in Australia and Europe for the same reason that a cheese burger at McDonalds is more expensive in Australia or Europe, or a table, or a an ice cream cone.

It's because the average income is higher here. There's a reason why everything is extremely cheap in very poor countries, and it's not always that the things are of poor quality, it's simply that people in Slovakia wouldn't be able to buy a burger if it cost the same as it does in america, that and the salaries are smaller so it costs them less to produce the burger.

So the average income is higher there and people are willing to pay more for a game. Alright. So I guess it would come down to percentages and valuation more than "oh man, you guys are crying about 60 bucks! We pay more than that!" Wouldn't it?

Not to oversimplify the issue but 1% of my weekly income is equal to 1% of your weekly income, no matter the buying power of our 1% in Iraq.

 

[Azuaron]

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.

Not relevant in a conversation about online passes. When a book is sold, the publishers don't provide additional services (such as online play) that cost the publishers money.

A more appropriate analogy is the used car analogy, since manufacturers provide warranties, but only to people who buy new cars. If you buy a car used, you don't get the manufacturer's warranty, because you are not a customer of the manufacturer, but Joe's Used Auto Sales. If Joe's offers their own warranty, all well and good, but if Joe's doesn't, then you don't get a warranty, and no one complains to the manufacturers that it's not fair.

 

[Lyri]

On the subject of wasting peoples time and inputing codes.

I play games on a PC, putting codes in is pretty much a staple part of the hobby but now it comes to a console and it's the anti-christ?
Why?

You can't even install a game without a CD-key, so what is the defining line here where it becomes such a problem?

 

[Merlark]

I'm Going to stop you right there...

I'm going to open with, I'm a PC gamer for the most part. Gamestop has never taken my used PC games in, EVER...period. Yet the PC gaming market still thrives, granted our games tend to initialy cost less most of the time and are quick to reduce in price. Console games take a VERY long time to be reduced. Add the ever improving digital market place and sales on steam often net PC gamers far bigger savings on popular games more than GameStop ever will for console players.

However, that being said lets not forget what a used game actually is. when you BUY a used game, the publisher doesn't get ANY money out of it. NONE, zilch. Gamestop or who ever collects all that. Gamestop is making super profit by giving you in store credit, which is worthless. for new games only to buy them back from you at a quarter of the price to sell them back to you at 80% what the game is worth.

Who is the thief here? that would be gamestop. the simple math is this, if you have 1 million people who want to say purchase gears of war 3, but only 250k are actually bought by gamestop to give to you, then resell them back to the other 750 thousand people then who made the most money here?

The publisher or gamestop? I think its completely ridiculous that you vilify the publisher here and likely in future episodes. Granted, those guys are not making life easy. maybe if the game was not 60 dollars people wouldn't need the used game system that you imply.

But the used game system is basically the same as Shareware back in the day of early PC gaming, where the game was passed from person to person to spread it, only instead its the full version of the game.

I'm not saying that I don't enjoy cheap used games, I think everyone does. but if you claim to love games...well, guess what? They cost money to make. because your too broke to have all the fun that you want to have, your basicly stealing money from the publisher and making it harder for them to make the games you love.

Gamestop is not MAKING games for you people, they could have all the money in the world and not one dime of it goes to making the gaming industry better. Not a single cent.

You claim its an investment for the future on sequels for games. I call bull crap on that.

I have a better idea, instead of paying for 120 dollars for two tripple A titles, just buy one. or gasp, get a second job and buy both. but buy them from the publisher so they make money to make more games. because giving the money to gamestop is not showing your love for games, it's proving to the world what a bunch of punks console gamers are and that they reap what they sew.

It's a hard truth, but there is your wake up call. Greed is bad but your only giving the greed card to Gamestop by trying to get games cheaper. It may be a dick move by publishers to force online passes, but they are trying to make a buck here, it isn't going to be paid by gamestop who found a way to rape the system.

 

[Pandabearparade]

Cheap people who wait a month after a game comes out just to get a used copy of a game, thus giving all their money to Gamestop, and not the creators or publishers of the game.

Those poor, poor publishers. Let's play some sad music and mourn for them. Surely the used game market is driving them all out of their homes and forcing them to eat out of dumpsters.

You know how to fix the problem these publishers are facing? Make games people -have- to play, and don't want to trade back in. Or, if EA and Activision are married to the notion of making shitty products, lower the price tag. People don't want to pay sixty dollars for a game of uncertain quality on launch day, so lower the price and people might have to think a bit harder when they contemplate the shiny 'New' tagged EA turd on the Gamestop shelf.

You think Bethesda is going to have this problem? Nope. I buy most games used, but I buy every Bethesda game on launch day because they're just that good and I have to play them immediately. Oblivion, Fallout 3, New Vegas are all -worth- sixty dollars. That is the kind of game I expect to get when I buy new. If you aren't going to make a game that good, I'll wait until it's used and pay what it's actually worth.

You claim its an investment for the future on sequels for games. I call bull crap on that.

Yet you don't explain why the argument isn't sound. I know that at least in my case I've bought very cheap used games without much thought, played them, and bought the sequels new after being impressed. That happened with Assassin's Creed just recently, to give a single example. I played the first three used and will be getting the upcoming sequel on release.

 

[Azuaron]

And you know what? I LIKE giving the money to gamestop, they give jobs to thousands of people and I will CONTINUE SUPPORTING THEM.

Seriously? You'd rather give money to a retailer than support the people who actually make the games you want to play?

Like, if you could buy a game you wanted from Publisher for $20, or you could buy it from Gamestop for $20, you'd choose Gamestop, because you want to support them, instead of the people who actually made the game, and need the money to keep making games that you'll want?

 

[Bostur]

I just don't understand why people are so against used games. The pump money into the industry and courts have upheld time and time again that we have the right to sell our licensed product to others. The publishers not seeing any money dosen't hold up either, because EVERY used game anywhere ever, was once a new game that was purchased.

This is the most important argument. A free market is based on transferring of ownership through trading. Second hand trading is just as important and valid and is acceptable in every market including copyrighted products. The whole idea of copyright is to turn intellectual value into tradeable goods.
By restricting trade game companies simply devalue their own products for both themselves and their consumers.


Nice to see Jim cover a serious topic again, he is at his best when angry

 

[MajorDolphin]

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.

11. Sell your old games to massive used game market via Craigslist, Gamestop or any other outlet.

Oh wait, that should be banned by the UN Used Game Police.

 

[dbphreakdb]

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.

Thank you for pointing toward that particular piece of law. Indeed, there is no copyright infringement for selling a game, nor buying it used. Furthermore, you are allowed to do it. This however, does not guarantee access to a packaged service, when an item is bought second hand.

It is why no matter how 'new' a used item is, you can't have the original warranty on an item, or even an extended warranty, unless the manufacturer or retailer wishes to grant you the privilege of such.

The online sector of a game is a voluntary service. A game could just as easily be sold without it. A game can be split between single player and multiplayer, and sold separately. The 'extra' 10 dollars that Jim rails against, and that so many people are decrying, helps to maintain a voluntary service. The game studio could just as easily not offer it all.

When you look at a balance sheet, there is a certain level of cost dedicated to maintenance and upkeep of those servers, to pay the people that undertake that rather simple, yet arduous task. It aids, yes, in increasing the profit margin of a development studio. It aims at satisfying shareholders, and putting more money into a corporations coffers.

However, without that money, that capital, in reserve, I very much doubt a company would be willing to take a risk on an untried convention in gaming, outside of a reasonable adaptation. Consumers are a fickle lot, and the current stance that the gaming community has taken just shows how fickle they are.

You are correct. First sale doctrine make it legal for you to be able to do that. There is no part of it guaranteeing that the manufacturer or any other party has to provide any further additional services.

As an aside? I am a person just like you. Again, I state, a better model could be used, i.e. Splitting a game into two separate disks, one single, one multi-player. Manufacturer side used game swapping, sort of like amazon meets e-bay. There are several options available. The current model that has been enacted by 3 parties (manufacturing, retailing, consumer) is helping no one, save for the guy in the middle.

If you want to make a positive change? Rail at GameStop for not giving the manufacturer 10% of the profits from their used sales. Rail at GameStop for not giving you, the consumer, more money for your trade in, so that you only have to trade 2 to 1. It all comes down to domino effects, and I think if we sat down, breathed, and thought for a moment, that we as a community would paint a bullseye on the entity that deserves it.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

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.

Thank you for pointing toward that particular piece of law. Indeed, there is no copyright infringement for selling a game, nor buying it used. Furthermore, you are allowed to do it. This however, does not guarantee access to a packaged service, when an item is bought second hand.

Which wasn't really my point. Your question was "would you work for free". I stated that that wasn't really the case here.

As an aside? I am a person just like you. Again, I state, a better model could be used, i.e. Splitting a game into two separate disks, one single, one multi-player. Manufacturer side used game swapping, sort of like amazon meets e-bay. There are several options available. The current model that has been enacted by 3 parties (manufacturing, retailing, consumer) is helping no one, save for the guy in the middle.

I agree. As I've said before, there's legally nothing stoping publishers from running their own Brick-and-Mortar stores

If you want to make a positive change? Rail at GameStop for not giving the manufacturer 10% of the profits from their used sales..

10%? Even under droit de suite, the most that's given is 5% on a multi-million dollar singlar item (At least under French law). 10% is waaaaaay out there. And if they did give that 10% to the publishers, would the publishers cut out the pass system? Likely, no. They would not.

 

[Wicky_42]

Here in Enland we userly pay £45-£60 for a brand spanking new game... which is about $60-$70 dollars... bad timez... I havnt bout a new AAA game in about a year, I mainly only play XBox live arcade now... to be honest, its been really fun... except for Clash of Heros, YOU JUST GOT 5 LINKS IN A ROW RANDOMLY?! BOLLOX!!!

Good God man, where do you shop?! Quick tip: go to Amazon.co.uk and buy new titles for £25-£35. Heck, even Steam is cheaper than your rates, and if you pre-order a title you're very excited about you can save yourself 10% or more, without waiting for months in the hope of a sale or price reduction. Smart shopping, what-ho!

 

[dbphreakdb]

I just don't understand why people are so against used games. The pump money into the industry and courts have upheld time and time again that we have the right to sell our licensed product to others. The publishers not seeing any money dosen't hold up either, because EVERY used game anywhere ever, was once a new game that was purchased.

This is the most important argument. A free market is based on transferring of ownership through trading. Second hand trading is just as important and valid and is acceptable in every market including copyrighted products. The whole idea of copyright is to turn intellectual value into tradeable goods.
By restricting trade game companies simply devalue their own products for both themselves and their consumers.


Nice to see Jim cover a serious topic again, he is at his best when angry

Mister Bostur. I would like for you to think on this for a moment, as well as the person you quoted.

Yes, it at one point was a new game. That is agreed. The question is, how many 'New Game Sales' did that 'Used Game' kill? Especially if the game is 'Used' two weeks after release? Now, what you have here is a question of rights.

Yes, it is your right to sell your game. It is also your right to buy it used. It is not your right, but a privilege to give you access to online services and support. A game company selling online passes, is it extracting it's pound of flesh that GameStop refuses to give the manufacturer.

 

[csoloist]

You can't even install a game without a CD-key, so what is the defining line here where it becomes such a problem?

It was bullshit when it started happening on PC and it's bullshit now. Doesn't matter though 'cus publishers've seen that we'll put up with it.

You know how to fix the problem these publishers are facing? Make games people -have- to play, and don't want to trade back in.

Uh, with the industry the way is at the moment this just isn't gonna happen. Sad maybe, but you know it's true.

 

[cookyy2k]

Surely this is all simple consumer economics. A consumer will decide which deal what a better value and purchase that one.

It's not even a small saving (in the UK anyways)typical cost of new game ~£60, the games I buy pre-owned 3 for £20. That's right I get 3 games for a third the price of a new game and not as long after coming out as you think. Guess what, I play all these pre owned games on my pre-owned xbox.

Why? not because I can't afford it but because that just makes better consumer sense, I don't have to justify why I do this to anyone as it's completely legal and I get to play the games I want at a fraction of the cost. You can all jump around calling me selfish and what not but can everyone stop getting on their high horses about how they buy the games new to support the industry, you're all starting to sound like a bunch of art snobs going on about how much better you are.

My car is second hand but I've never heard Mazda complain or had them try to take features off my car unless I pay them extra because they'd get their asses handed to them through the courts. I agree new/.extra content should be payed for as "DLC" as would any new upgrades to my car but standard features should be standard to all.

 

[Bostur]

I just don't understand why people are so against used games. The pump money into the industry and courts have upheld time and time again that we have the right to sell our licensed product to others. The publishers not seeing any money dosen't hold up either, because EVERY used game anywhere ever, was once a new game that was purchased.

This is the most important argument. A free market is based on transferring of ownership through trading. Second hand trading is just as important and valid and is acceptable in every market including copyrighted products. The whole idea of copyright is to turn intellectual value into tradeable goods.
By restricting trade game companies simply devalue their own products for both themselves and their consumers.


Nice to see Jim cover a serious topic again, he is at his best when angry

Mister Bostur. I would like for you to think on this for a moment, as well as the person you quoted.

Yes, it at one point was a new game. That is agreed. The question is, how many 'New Game Sales' did that 'Used Game' kill? Especially if the game is 'Used' two weeks after release? Now, what you have here is a question of rights.

Yes, it is your right to sell your game. It is also your right to buy it used. It is not your right, but a privilege to give you access to online services and support. A game company selling online passes, is it extracting it's pound of flesh that GameStop refuses to give the manufacturer.

If a game is 'used' 2 weeks after release I guess that game was very poor value for money and the consumer got a bad deal. If something was killed I suppose the game killed itself.

If a game is marketed as having multiplayer I think the consumer has a right to expect that the multiplayer feature is actually working. Otherwise it should be clear at the time of purchase that multiplayer is not a supported feature that is part of the product.

Gamestop making a business as a broker is a detail that I find irrelevant. If they can legally make a business brokering used games then good for them, if not thats their problem. I don't see why game companies should interfere with Gamestop's business.

Game companies can choose not to sell their games, then they can prevent a second hand market, but that wouldn't be much of a business would it. By selling a product the idea is that ownership is transferred and control lost. You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

[Azuaron]

11. Sell your old games to massive used game market via Craigslist, Gamestop or any other outlet.

Oh wait, that should be banned by the UN Used Game Police.

Way to miss the entire point of everything I said.

 

[FreakSheet]

Publishers, do what Steam does. Offer your games on a sale for less! During the summer sale, I bought many games, and paid about the same as a regular game. I'm sure many other people did the same. That means while you made maybe a bit less, MANY more people tried your game and is far more likely to buy another one of your games later, likely at full price.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

I just don't understand why people are so against used games. The pump money into the industry and courts have upheld time and time again that we have the right to sell our licensed product to others. The publishers not seeing any money dosen't hold up either, because EVERY used game anywhere ever, was once a new game that was purchased.

Yes, the problem is that if 50 people buy the game new and then sell it back after about a week once they've beaten it, and then another 50 people buy the used copies, the publishers only get money from the first 50 people. The problem isn't with used games, it's that the publishers don't get ANY of the money from used games, even when they're sold by the same people who sell the new versions. The online passes are just a way to get around that. Sure they they suck, but Gamestop isn't going to play nice and give the publishers a few dollars on each used game sale. That's fucked up. The publishers are the ones that MAKE THE GAMES, as consumers, we should be rewarding them for their hard work so that they can produce even better games. Gamestop is just freaking greedy.

The only other way to fix the problem is for one retailer, say, Walmart for instance, to make a deal with the publishers that they get a few dollars on every used game. Then the publishers could boycott Gamestop. But that isn't a terribly viable option because 1) it's unlikely that any distributer is going to make that deal, and 2) it's very, very risky for the publishers.