Jimquisition: Online Passes Are Bad For Everybody

[rcs619]

There's also the times when the online passes screw over people who bought new.

Like, in Space Marine, for example. I bought new, but I STILL need to under a code to progress past level 5 in the multiplayer. First thing I did when I got home was go to the PS Store and redeem my code.

Then I go to the multiplayer, and it says "press triangle to redeem". I do that, and it goes tot he store and says "nothing to redeem". I bought the game new, and redeemed my code, but since I did it in the WRONG ORDER, I cannot progress past level 5 in the multiplayer. How hard is it for this game to search my PS3 and see that I downloaded the release patch? I could call the helpline or whatever...but you know what? I don't feel like dealing with all that. I bought this game new. I shouldn't be locked from progressing further in the multiplayer and I'll be damned if I buy an online pass for a game I bought new.

On the bright side, the single-player campaign was fun as hell, and that's the main reason I bought Space Marine in the first place.

 

[pieguy259]

I bought DA:O used. I liked it so much that I bought DAII new, even at a frankly unreasonable price. I bought SR2 used. I liked it so much that I've preordered SR3, even though I'm going to get thoroughly ripped off by EB Games.

Jim's point on used games encouraging buying sequels new? Valid.

 

[Sicram]

PC has had worse than this for a long, long time now. You're a bit late really, there's been a thing called "CD-Keys" for ages. Before you know it there won't even be a possibility to trade games no matter the platform. Except for steam which has that ability between the users, thus cutting out the middle man.

I do however agree that the online passes and cd-keys and whatnot are really getting in the way lately, even more so when some games are going in the "you own a license, not a copy" direction which is way worse than some online passes. If console players could actually manage their own servers instead of having the dev/publisher provide one then there probably wouldn't be any online passes. Ask for the ability to set up servers instead of going apeshit.

Also, the sentence "can't afford such luxury" makes you sound abnoxious. That's what games are, a luxury. Can't afford it just yet? Well, wait a bit longer.

 

[hermes]

Jim, you are just whining about used games.

Your first point is bollocks. If you are truly trying to convince me that used games makes up for more sales on sequels, because people that tried the original are more likely to buy the next one new, or because used games are a way to experiment the game, here is my answer: SO IS PIRACY. Yeah, being there, than that. If you are truly expecting me to believe someone that buy cheaper the game might pay full price again because he enjoyed it, your naivete is only matched for your ego.

Your second point is pretty weak. The quality of the experience has no bearing in the price. What's unfair is unfair, doesn't matter if the game is crap or godsend.

Your third point is an hyperbole. Wasting your time is the same as killing you? In that case, I should be ravaging about every single game that makes me waste time in a loading screen. How dare you, Bioshock, Fallout and Borderlands to kill me while I watch a static screen and a progress bar? Shame on you!! I am a busy and important person that wants to spend every second of its non busy time doing important stuff, like killing locusts, fighting zombies and teabaging noobs... How dare them to rob me and the world of some milliseconds of important violence?

As I said, just whining...

 

[Strain42]

Or you could just try doing what I do. Not bother with the online multiplayer and be happy.

I can buy a used game and not have to pay any extra money.

And it's awesome.

EDIT: Of course if it's a developer or publisher I like, I'll support them and buy the game new.

 

[Jabbawocky]

I personally feel that game companies are well within their rights to used Online Passes as a way of gaining profit from second hand sales. It seems Ok to pay for featurs like online play, extra characters, bonus missions etc. As long as it doesn't act as a detriment to the proper game.

With that said, I'm not against second hand sales and fully suport them.

A year or so ago I paid £10 for a used copy of Dragon Age Origins. I liked the game so much I bought all the stuff new gamers could get. If the game is good enough then it will make back its money that way.

In other scenarios I bought Army of Two, Assassin's Creed, Bioshock and a few others second hand but bought all their sequels new. Just like Jim said, used copies of games can snare more cautious gamers. Each new game is a pricy purchase sometimes I'm just not willing to take the risk regardless of reviews and demos.

The problem with game companies is that they are treating second hand gamers like criminals whilst second hand gamers treat game companies as corporations evil incarnate. The problem isn't the system of online passes but the attitudes of both sides of the conflict.

There is no right answer. Each side have their pros and cons which are as equally compelling as each other.

 

[AdumbroDeus]

You know what hurts the game industry even more than online passes? 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.

"Oh no, I can't play this shitty multiplayer without putting in a code. Oh woe is me."

You mean people that can't afford to constantly buy new games?

 

[rosac]

One thing I never understand, is that if there is so many copies of used games going around, they have already been bought once, correct? Therefore the company has their cut of the money from the lone game, and what happens to it afterwards doesn't matter.

If there are thousands of used copies of certain games on the shelves, it has already been bought thousands of times. Therefore money has gone into the publisher for the product. therefore they have got money from the game.

I may have repeated myself, but I think this point needs to be mentioned more.

 

[Aura Guardian]

Seems I'm one of the few that likes Online Passes.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

Well said, Jimquisition. I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Robert Ewing]

I hate online passes. I don't want to have to create a form of identification for every game I buy... I'd have to have hundreds of ID's that I won't even remember a week past playing the game.

It's a time-wasting unnecessary addition to an already pointless anti-piracy plan. It just makes the life for the real gamer a difficult one, when you victimize your own players. But it may cause a bit on an inconvenience for the pirates. Yeah, it will take them an entire 2 hours to probably crack the online pass problem, thus rendering the whole plan useless.

Among other issues, the online pass is bad. Truly bad. What ever happened to pick up and play? Not pick, install DRM, sign up, verify account, sign in, wait for extra downloads, play, but you are constantly being monitored. Yeah, fun.

 

[Something Amyss]

Seems I'm one of the few that likes Online Passes.

There could be a reason for that.

 

[ThreeWords]

This man is a joke. He thinks that swearing and being an arse constitutes an argument. A third of his case revolved around the idea that he didn't have the patience to put in a code. "I only have one life, and you're wasting it. that's basically murder"

Another relied on the assumption that people wouldn't understand the system. He referred to gamers his own viewers, mark you, as "people who can't tell their arses form their elbows"

And there was the part where he simply dissolved into swearing with every other word. He embodies the raging nerd archetype to a T.

Honestly, I am not impressed.

 

[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.

No, I got your "make more money you bum" list. Kind of pathetic.

Yep, definitely not the point what I said. Read it again.

 

[Azuaron]

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.

But we don't agree. The actual publishers see actual money from the pockets of actual consumers who buy new games. You're trying to say that water from the Ohio River never reaches the Atlantic Ocean because that pesky Mississippi River's gotten in the way, but you're missing the point that it's the same water.

Taking the metaphor further, the Publisher is the Atlantic Ocean. New game sales come from rivers like the Mississippi and St. Lawrence (retailers), which get their water from smaller rivers and streams (consumers). The Atlantic Ocean is receiving that water. Used game sales are the Columbia: the money goes to a different place (the Pacific, in this case) and the Publisher doesn't see any of it. Maybe, maybe it'll come back around to them through various currents or whatever, but they have no way to track or measure it.

 

[Azuaron]

you didn't actually read what I said:

If you want to use a publisher's servers and bandwidth, they have a right to bloody charge you.

The game is a product. Online play is a service. If you want the service, you have to pay the people who are providing it, not Gamestop.

Or, in the used vehicle analogy of which people are so fond: the warranty only applies to the first owner; manufacturers provide no warranty for vehicles sold used. Why? Because they only provide a warranty to people who are actually their customers.

Oh i read what you said, but here's some question's.

If you have a concert ticket and suddenly decide your not gonna use it and give it or sell it to someone else do they need to repay for the seat because it's not the original person who bought it.

That's called scalping, and it's illegal in many states (USA).

If you go into a restaurant with friends and don't eat or drink anything because you don't feel like it do you have to pay the restaurant a seat charge because your taking a seat from them.

Many places have a minimum purchase (usually just coffee) if you want to sit in their restaurant.

When you buy a second hand car if it's got 6 months of registration left, because you bought this car do you need to go and get new registration to access the roads even though the car already has 6 months access(This could be different in your country, but in australia, you could sell the car 5 times in 12 months and the only person who would have to buy rego is the person who had it 12 months after the rego was initially purchased)

I actually just went through this, and it was a major pain in the ass. I had to:

1. Get insurance on the car (the car was, for a period of time, insured by both myself and the previous owner).

2. Get the title signed over.

3. Re-register the car and get new plates.

4. Get the car re-inspected.

(Massachusetts, USA)

So, yes, I did have to get it re-registered. And re-inspected. And it was double insured for a while.

Someone has already paid the cover charge to access the content. Your merely taking their place. From a company's perspective there is no cost conveyed to them by a second hand player using the online service, than there is if the original purchaser has played consistently over the next 2 years.

If these used copies meant that the original owner and the used owner were both able to play the game at once then there would be some credibility to your statement. As it stands regardless of how people have gotten a legitimate copy of the game. The rest of it should have been budgeted for by the company.

"Cover charge" is a good way of phrasing it. Tell me, when you go into a club, you pay the cover charge, right? When you leave the club, can you slip someone in under your own cover charge? No, no you cannot. The night may only be half over, so one "body" has paid for space within the club for the entire night, but that's not how cover charges work. Each person must pay the cover separately or they can't get in.

 

[Azuaron]

The game is a product. Online play is a service. If you want the service, you have to pay the people who are providing it, not Gamestop.

Or, in the used vehicle analogy of which people are so fond: the warranty only applies to the first owner; manufacturers provide no warranty for vehicles sold used. Why? Because they only provide a warranty to people who are actually their customers.

Actually this isn't true-- or rather, it isn't completely true. Some car manufacturers do provide a warranty to used vehicles sold through their certified pre-owned program. In addition, the customers know that they're getting a car that has passed an exhaustive inspection system and that are guaranteed to have fewer than a set number of miles. I'm also thinking of a similar kind of thing where you can buy refurbished, used copies of things like smartphones for a cheaper price than brand new.

But you've hit on my point right there: manufacturers will continue providing a warranty if you buy it from their program. Gamestop is not a "certified pre-owned program" for videogames.

 

[Therumancer]

Good one Jim, perhaps your best one yet from my perspective.

One big problem here is that the only thing the gaming industry understands today is money. The only way to get it to change policy is to cost it money. Trying to get a boycott going against any game, especially one that is popular and making a profit is very difficult. Most gamers whine about things like online passes, but can't conceive of going without the latest online shooter that everyone else will be playing. The gaming community and it's internal peer pressure makes us very similar to a group of junkies waiting for our next fix, the dealer (the game industry) can keep taking a dump on you, and yet you come crawling back for more.

A big part of this is also that the gaming industry is catering increasingly to the lowest human denominator. The ever-popular shooters are basically Farmville for a differant crowd. One of the reasons why the gaming industry gets away with what it's doing is that most of it's current audience are sheep. Even if you get all the serious gamers to support a boycott we're outnumbered by the so called "Bros" (made fun of in various webcomics, I think it's more accurate than saying "Frat boys" which is used interchangably for reasons I won't get into). This futility incidently also means that many of the smarter gamers who WOULD boycott a product aren't going to bother because while willing to deprive themselves of something they will probably enjoy for the greater good, they recognize that no greater good is going to come of it.

It's a big issue, and one with no easy answer, simply due to the huge number of peoples whose central behavior would have to be influanced. The majority of gamers having no real knowlege of podcasts like this one, and even if they did, and agreed, nobody wants to be the one guy ostracized from their peer group for not having the newest "Call Of Duty" or whatever. Getting millions of people to do anything is ridiculously hard.

Oh and Jim, if you bother to read your responses (now that we're up to 300+ of them spread accross 11 pages I doubt it) I'm sort of wondering why you expect us to praise god for you, as you are his gift to the world he loves, when your a professed athiest who doesn't believe there is a heaven for him to get into. I guess humor doesn't need consistincy, but this didn't seem to flow well this week.