Jimquisition: Online Passes Are Bad For Everybody
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I rent games almost always before I buy them. If it has any of this is it there is 0 chance I will buy it then. Im with you.Mcoffey said:
Game companies like their gamers complacent, apathetic, and stupid. It's win-win for them.
It's a shame we let them win, though.
I do miss the days of just popping stuff in a console and playing. Wasn't that the whole freaking point?
It's a shame we let them win, though.
I do miss the days of just popping stuff in a console and playing. Wasn't that the whole freaking point?
Except publishers and developers dont see a dime of that used game money...so most every scenario you put forth loses that developer money because they all require massive influxes of used games where only the first few only have to buy that game new...used means 5 million people can go buy that game used and keep selling it back and 10 million get to play it and the developer or publisher doesn't see a dime from those 10 million users.
Theres a reasons used game sales are a hinderance to this industry now...Because gamestop is a world wide buisness and thus they take in millions upon millions of used games unlike how it used to be where the used game buisness was far smaller and was actually a benefit to the industry its no longer a benefit it sucks up more money then new game sales can possibly take in.
Theres a reasons used game sales are a hinderance to this industry now...Because gamestop is a world wide buisness and thus they take in millions upon millions of used games unlike how it used to be where the used game buisness was far smaller and was actually a benefit to the industry its no longer a benefit it sucks up more money then new game sales can possibly take in.
I feel like online passes are one of the smallest issues and I wouldn't battle publishers over them. A couple thoughts:
1) The whole "you're wasting my time" issue comes off as childish. Its annoying to enter a pass code, sure, but then its over. Its really not a big deal.
2) His argument ignores people who don't play online games. I didn't play a single online game seriously until two or three years ago, and I've been gaming since I was six (I'm 18). So it doesn't affect those people. Just thought they should be recognized.
3) I feel like the used game industry is going to collapse soon. With the advent of Steam, OnLive, and the XBLA and PSN, I feel like the next generation of consoles will be--or will at least approach--digital-distribution only models. And if that is the case, you won't be able to have used games. And then publishers would be content and wouldn't need to bother with online passes.
1) The whole "you're wasting my time" issue comes off as childish. Its annoying to enter a pass code, sure, but then its over. Its really not a big deal.
2) His argument ignores people who don't play online games. I didn't play a single online game seriously until two or three years ago, and I've been gaming since I was six (I'm 18). So it doesn't affect those people. Just thought they should be recognized.
3) I feel like the used game industry is going to collapse soon. With the advent of Steam, OnLive, and the XBLA and PSN, I feel like the next generation of consoles will be--or will at least approach--digital-distribution only models. And if that is the case, you won't be able to have used games. And then publishers would be content and wouldn't need to bother with online passes.
My basic take is:
Good games don't get traded in very often.
Great games don't get traded in hardly at all.
Most games get traded in quickly and repeatedly.
Anyone who wants to get rid of or subvert this model wants fewer good and great games and more "normal" (ie. shit) games.
Good games don't get traded in very often.
Great games don't get traded in hardly at all.
Most games get traded in quickly and repeatedly.
Anyone who wants to get rid of or subvert this model wants fewer good and great games and more "normal" (ie. shit) games.
Do you not see the irony in saying "EVEN A SECOND OF GAMERS TIME WASTED IS UNACCEPTABLE" over and over again?
How? Smaller guys are developing for xbla/psn/steam distribution. They are generally not releasing disk titles.Nico4 said:
No only big companies have to pull to trick people into paying 10-15 bucks extra for their game.
I've always found resistance to online passes to be juvenile, selfish, and completely illogical. Similar to resistance to DLC (this is not an invitation to start that debate).
Not only are you explicitly paying for a service that the publisher is actively providing in these cases (think of the new copies as being a bundle), you're also helping the publishers deal with increased load that would otherwise have generated more income. People like to say "it's not more load because someone had to quit to sell their game!", but that falls apart very quickly when you consider that used games can have a huge impact on the online userbase's attrition rate. Instead of someone quitting and freeing up resources, you have to deal with that account continuing, screwing up attrition estimates and costing more than you would otherwise have budgeted for those resources. 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.
And it's not like these things are making used games as expensive as new ones. I do not buy for a second that the sort of games implementing online passes, which tend to be very popular games that don't depreciate much in value anyway, are preventing people from buying them with a $10 fee and really hurting consumers. Even if they were - you're talking about paying $10 to play a game online that requires an internet connection, console, and television that all cost a very significant amount of money, even used. Regarding his point about how it hurts publishers, is $10 really going to turn away so many such people that they would have gained significantly better advertising and traction with those people? The only way I can see it being a significant issue is if people keep pretending like it's some great injustice and it hurts the reputation of the publisher unnecessarily.
I feel like the overwhelming majority of arguments against these things, again like DLC, involve some bizarre ontological notion of what a "complete" game is and what you're paying for when you buy one. Misrepresentation is one thing and making people pay twice for the same product is another, but providing an independent service (or independent content) that's use is contingent upon a product is not either of these things. People are essentially getting mad because they bought a product and it didn't come with every single accessory ever manufactured for that product for free. The only reason this holds up for a second is because the product's status as software makes it hazy enough that these self-serving justifications can be made to seem slightly plausible.
Gamers need to stop acting like victims of shady corporate schemes. These publishers are selling you a product for money, not "punishing" you for buying a different product from someone else.
Not only are you explicitly paying for a service that the publisher is actively providing in these cases (think of the new copies as being a bundle), you're also helping the publishers deal with increased load that would otherwise have generated more income. People like to say "it's not more load because someone had to quit to sell their game!", but that falls apart very quickly when you consider that used games can have a huge impact on the online userbase's attrition rate. Instead of someone quitting and freeing up resources, you have to deal with that account continuing, screwing up attrition estimates and costing more than you would otherwise have budgeted for those resources. 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.
And it's not like these things are making used games as expensive as new ones. I do not buy for a second that the sort of games implementing online passes, which tend to be very popular games that don't depreciate much in value anyway, are preventing people from buying them with a $10 fee and really hurting consumers. Even if they were - you're talking about paying $10 to play a game online that requires an internet connection, console, and television that all cost a very significant amount of money, even used. Regarding his point about how it hurts publishers, is $10 really going to turn away so many such people that they would have gained significantly better advertising and traction with those people? The only way I can see it being a significant issue is if people keep pretending like it's some great injustice and it hurts the reputation of the publisher unnecessarily.
I feel like the overwhelming majority of arguments against these things, again like DLC, involve some bizarre ontological notion of what a "complete" game is and what you're paying for when you buy one. Misrepresentation is one thing and making people pay twice for the same product is another, but providing an independent service (or independent content) that's use is contingent upon a product is not either of these things. People are essentially getting mad because they bought a product and it didn't come with every single accessory ever manufactured for that product for free. The only reason this holds up for a second is because the product's status as software makes it hazy enough that these self-serving justifications can be made to seem slightly plausible.
Gamers need to stop acting like victims of shady corporate schemes. These publishers are selling you a product for money, not "punishing" you for buying a different product from someone else.