Jimquisition: Online Passes Are Bad For Everybody
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's amazing that gamers are such entitled gits, really. They let you in beta, but it doesn't run flawlessly? X developer is crap! They developed an extra costume for a character in the meantime between stopping development and the product shipping? Corporations are trying to tear down our customer rights with Day One DLC! I can't buy two brand new games on the same day? Dear god, games are too expensive!
Here's an idea for how to work around the system: buy a (one) game that you really want. Play it until something better comes along or until you can afford something new by working a while. You don't need Space Marine *and* Dead Island. You can't play them at the same time. If you can, please post vids because that's pretty neat.
Do I want to buy Space Marine? Yes. Do I want to buy Dead Island? Absolutely. Do I want a Kinect? Sure, seems neat. But I can't afford it right now. So I'm going to have to wait. That's how economics works.
Corporations are evil. Yes, we know. But developers aren't three-tounged beasts that code by braying in the Lost Words into a microphone. They're people. They have families and mortgages and an intense need to eat. You're not fighting the power by complaining about having to pay a whole ten extra dollars. Which, I might add, isn't that much when you consider the price of the game as a whole.
All things aside, have you tried renting? It's the same thing as far as the dev's compensation, and it's probably cheaper.
Here's an idea for how to work around the system: buy a (one) game that you really want. Play it until something better comes along or until you can afford something new by working a while. You don't need Space Marine *and* Dead Island. You can't play them at the same time. If you can, please post vids because that's pretty neat.
Do I want to buy Space Marine? Yes. Do I want to buy Dead Island? Absolutely. Do I want a Kinect? Sure, seems neat. But I can't afford it right now. So I'm going to have to wait. That's how economics works.
Corporations are evil. Yes, we know. But developers aren't three-tounged beasts that code by braying in the Lost Words into a microphone. They're people. They have families and mortgages and an intense need to eat. You're not fighting the power by complaining about having to pay a whole ten extra dollars. Which, I might add, isn't that much when you consider the price of the game as a whole.
All things aside, have you tried renting? It's the same thing as far as the dev's compensation, and it's probably cheaper.
I'm sorry to say I can't empathize with you, Jim. I never buy games used. Ever. I don't trust refurbished disks or equipment. The last 2 used games I bought had gigantic scratches on them that rendered them useless, and my used DS Lite, after a month (the warranty was gone by that point), started having pieces fall off of it, and the touchscreen's LCD is broken, making the damn thing jumble like hell. I can't even use it anymore 
And not everyone plays online. Most of the time, online play is just some shitty thing that's tacked onto the whole game for money, not because the game needs it. Ugh, no thank you, I'll stick to my MEs and my Skyrims.
If having to take the extra fifteen seconds to enter in a code really bothers you THAT much, I think you need to relax for a second and go find a better way to spend your time. Codes are just a way for publishers to keep more money going to them. With the shitty used stuff Gamestop sells, I'm not really all that up in arms about buying games new to get benefits.
And not everyone plays online. Most of the time, online play is just some shitty thing that's tacked onto the whole game for money, not because the game needs it. Ugh, no thank you, I'll stick to my MEs and my Skyrims.
If having to take the extra fifteen seconds to enter in a code really bothers you THAT much, I think you need to relax for a second and go find a better way to spend your time. Codes are just a way for publishers to keep more money going to them. With the shitty used stuff Gamestop sells, I'm not really all that up in arms about buying games new to get benefits.
Never bought an online pass and never will, the very existence of such makes me think twice if I actually want the game.dbphreakdb said:
Also I would disagree with the entitled to withhold it pending extra payment. I have seen several games come out with multiplayer advertised on the box and no mention as to an extra charge to play it. I'm willing to bet the ASA would have something to say about such practices.
Hit the nail on the head again Jim. The Online Pass is just rampant short-sighted greed that will do nothing but harm the industry. Instead of rewarding the consumer it is punishing them.
I can't see any valid points to the argument for online passes until they remove them from every game and make all people pay for them. Drop the price tag 10 quid and then charge me 10 quid for the online pass and all will be well. Then i can tell the developers exactly what i think of their game with statistics that actually have relevance. It could be said that if i buy a game new and never use the online pass i'm given then the publishers have stolen from me.
There's a nice switch around to calling me a thief all the time for buying second hand you bastards! You know who you are!
There's a nice switch around to calling me a thief all the time for buying second hand you bastards! You know who you are!
It could be said that gamestop and the like are doing more for the games industry than DRMs and online passes...one makes new buyers out of people who can't afford it normally. The other turns you away if you don't conform to it's imposed rules. All hail the fourth reich of computer gaming...online passesKojiro ftt said:
Just cause I don't want to spend a ton of time editing another comment, I'll just answer in order.Azuaron said:
1. Regardless, the basis for this whole debate is that used games hurt publishers, which is a lie.
2. See above. Also, no one expects a warranty from a used game, but they do expect access to the full product. Whether or not the publisher defines what is available to games purchased new and used is entirely up to them. The larger effect is that, just like DRM, online passes and other downstream revenue schemes hurt paying customers.
3. Not all my comments were directed at you.
4. Whether or not my assessment is correct, we've arrived at the same conclusion: the actual publishers do not see money from my pocket. They get it from the retailer, so at no point am I a publisher's customer. We agree.
5. I may grant you that servers are expensive (I don't really know) but bandwidth and data transfer is actually dirt cheap. Big telecoms proliferate the myth that it is expensive to transfer data so they can continue to make money off of their customers.
6. In the case of online play, the should care about my "lost sale". Maybe I pick up CoD "X" used and like it so much I buy the next one full price? Business is more than just selling products, it's also cultivating a customer base, amongst other things.
I'd say that while I don't necessarily disagree withe online pass system, I don't think it really does anything to endear gamers- both new and used purchasers- to game publishers who are perceived to be out for nothing more than to make a buck. Yes, that's what business boils down to, but there's more than one way to conduct yourself and there are many examples in every industry of businesses that don't put their customers after the money they are willing to spend.
and if your nice used car was bought in a box, would you be entitled to the orignal services included in that, i.e. the manufacturer's warranty? I think not. So yes, let's get this into court with a lawsuit, or even better yet, completely mediated in a legally bound manner, with a few consumer advocacy agencies, retailers that make a practice of buying and selling used games, and game development studios.cookyy2k said:
I bet that GameStop comes out of it with the worst, followed by gamers, and then the software studios.
well then, why not just wait the few months and get a new game that forces your retail level store to go to the manufacturer for a new one.cookyy2k said:
Well, I don't care much for multiplayer, especially on consoles. So, I'll probably just buy used out of spite anyway.
This is so wrong. It doesn't matter who owned the game first, who sold it or who bought it used. If there are five million copies sold of a game it doesn't really matter how they got out there. There are five million copies and that's what the company sold. There is no way to proveWilliamRLBaker said:
that if used sales were taken away it would immediately translate into more new sales. i.e. without used sales, it doesn't automatically mean there would be 10 million copies sold. I'm sure it would translate into some, of course, but there's no real way to know the numbers, so there's no way to quantify it as "lost money". It's only lost if they had it in the first place.
It's called consumer capitalism, the consumer goes and looks for the best value and shops there. If the new market isn't the best value then I ain't going to shop there.CannibalCorpses said:I'm proud too. Economics for dummies!cookyy2k said:
Shhh...it might catch on
To be honest, most games would be better off without multiplayer modes that are only included because all the cool kids have them, because they're usually shit and no-one ever plays them because they're not Call of Duty anyway.dbphreakdb said: