Poll: A question for those of you who hate Online Pass

[RJ 17]

Setting aside the fact that the answers to the poll itself do seem to be just a teeny-weeny bit biased, I do have to agree with the premise. In two topics refering to the rumors that the next XBox will have a feature that prevents used games from being played, I mentioned that I'm getting rather sick and tired of this War on Used Games.

To make a shorter version of my rant from the two other topics, I think it's a bit ridiculous for a gaming company to expect to make money every time one of their games changes hands. It'd be the same as Wal-Mart demanding money every time someone has a garage sail. I've never seen the earnings reports for game companies so I might be entirely wrong on this, but I just can't imagine that the used game industry is really eating into their profits enough to warrant all this. Games make the most amount of their money in the opening day/week. If you release a crap product that no one buys on the opening day/week then that's your failure as a developer and you shouldn't be taking it out on consumers.

 

[Something Amyss]

Thing is, a lot of the "DLC" ARE just unlock codes for on-disc content. These are easy to find, because they're a few K or even Megs, but nothing more.

It's not always a tell, and transparency would be nice, but even then, we've heard the "gone gold" argument before when it wasn't the case. When it's so easy to enter "pants on fire" territory, it's hard to see them using transparency in an honest fashion.

I do dislike ODDLC, but with the Amalur example. If they are telling the truth and this is brand new content that is not on the disk in any way shape or form, and that is the if, I wouldn't have problems if that was how companies try to incentavive people to buying new.

*Edit. This is all assuming the Going Gold is honest.

Emphasis on "If" and "assuming."

And that's kind of the point. Assuming it's true, yeah. But you need to assume it to be true.

 

[Pandabearparade]

Yeah it's a practice that makes buying used games more expensive and less likely for me to get them but I really don't see any great moral or fundamental right being trampled on like some people do. I really see that more of the gamer's entitlement issue than anything.

It's a sad day when wanting the same treatment every other customer in every other industry gets is 'entitlement' (a word that is ridiculously overused, by the way). If a company charged secondhand buyers extra to unlock the special features portion of a DVD, do you think anyone would support them?

Nope, but for some reason a lot of video game consumers have Stockholm syndrome and will support just about anything.

 

[Pandabearparade]

Buying used games hurts the developers that make games, it's as simple as that. No developer see's a single dime for a used game sale at Gamestop,

This is true of every industry. If you buy a slightly-used hand grenade at a pawn shop, the original manufacturer of said grenade won't see a cent. Who cares? This is something every other industry has dealt with for centuries at least.

If you want to support your developer, you have to pony up that $60+.

I might see your point of view -if- this was true. It's not. The one who is going to rake in money is the publisher, not the developer. The developer has already been paid and isn't getting another shiny nickle (in most cases).

All they're doing is trying to make sure they get the full value for their game. They do honest work, why would you punish them for it?

Because the way they're going about it is all wrong. Instead of making better games or making games significantly cheaper, they're choosing to be dickheads and just forcing used buyers to pay to play online.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

So, my question is, do you think online passes are a shitty idea but locking regular gameplay content is fine? If so, why.

I think both "online passes" and "pre-order content" that gets unlocked depending on when/where/from how/for how much you ordered your game are total and utter crap.

I still buy used, but only with online passes intact... and I sell with online passes intact. If a game requires the code to be played, I don't buy. If I decide to keep the game... I still haven't touched any of my online passes. I just refuse to put up with it.

All in all, I spent about twice as much money on map packs for CoD titles, as I did for the respective game, so I probably am a part of the problem, but so far I felt that I got genuine, new material for games we really still do enjoy playing. Ever since I first got a vendor-specific 'extra' that was not what I expected, I basically stopped 90% of my pre-ordering, because I really don't feel like going Sherlock Columbo half a year before a game comes out. Yeah, I love me some gaming goodness, but a lot of that pre-order content, those 0-day-unlockables (that are on the disc) and the plastic crap they pack into 'collector's' editions these days is a sad, sad joke.

I like the Catherine pizza box. That one was fresh, simple, silly and quite Japanese. But I wouldn't want every game to come in random boxes, crates or other crap. Enough with the crap and the spending way too much money on lawyers and marketing honchos, focus on making them bloody games!

 

[Xpheyel]

Cerberus Network and that small little stuff is fine. Just when it's a large chunk of the game you're locking me out of, that's a different story. Day 1 DLC on the other hand that you don't get free for buying the game new is absolute bullshit, no way around it.

I feel pretty much the same way. Even had a hard drive failure and was able get all my Ceberus network stuff back. Though the need to go out of band to Bioware's social site is a bit obnoxious.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Warning: Wall Ahead

Its stupid. Its just developers being cunts and trying to fuck over users.
Plus what happens if your system dies? Then all that extra shit you have to rebuy though no fault of your own.

I don't think it's the devs really. Going by what David Jaffy has said, I get the feeling that the devs hat it more than we do and I can't blame them. After putting all that work into a project, to have it all chopped up must be frustrating too. If I was a dev, I would want everyone who got the game to appreciate all the work I put into it.
I think it's bean counters at the publisher that do it as it's only done with games backed by big publishers like EA & Sony.

My problem with Online Passes is that they have the opposite of the intended effect for me. There are multiple times where I rented a game, enjoyed the game's campaign and maybe considered buying it if the multiplayer is good, just to learn later that it's locked out. What's the point then? Paying 10$ for multiplayer just to get the full game a few days later and have a usless online pass sitting around? Might as well say "Fuck it" and not buy the game entirely.

Cerberus Network and that small little stuff is fine. Just when it's a large chunk of the game you're locking me out of, that's a different story. Day 1 DLC on the other hand that you don't get free for buying the game new is absolute bullshit, no way around it.

That was exactly my experience with Battlefield 3. Rented it, the campaign was kind of lame but the controls were pretty good. The multiplayer may have convinced me to buy it but I sent it back rather than buy the online pass. Nobody's going to pay $10 on top of a rental.
Yea. I've never had a problem with bonus in game items, themes, swag, or anything like that. Those are appropriate incentives. It's when they start locking the actual gameplay content; that's what bothers me.

Buying used games hurts the developers that make games, it's as simple as that. No developer see's a single dime for a used game sale at Gamestop, or anywhere else that sells used games or if you happen to buy a game from a CL posting.

If you want to support your developer, you have to pony up that $60+. I can generally understand this issue from both viewpoints. They feel they're getting cheated on honest money, and some games take sometimes years of planning and development and lot's a crappy hours to put together. So when they see that the sales aren't what was expected, you can bet anything that they're going to come up with a way to ensure that gamers pay for a new version.

All they're doing is trying to make sure they get the full value for their game. They do honest work, why would you punish them for it?

That's the other thing. I don't think the devs get a cut of that money. They still get the same crappy wages they've been making for years. All that money goes into the pockets of board members.
I'm sure gamers who purchased used games want to get the full value of their money too. I'm sure most of them earned it honestly too.

Buying used games hurts the developers that make games, it's as simple as that. No developer see's a single dime for a used game sale at Gamestop, or anywhere else that sells used games or if you happen to buy a game from a CL posting.

Nor should they make money from used sales. You could also say that buying a used car hurts GM factory workers too that is just how it is. I could say that the lack of used games would hurt the developers more because then fewer games would be bought. Indeed, many people purchase new games with money from trading in old ones. Many people also risk their $60 only because they have the option to get some of that money back if they don't like the game.

If you want to support your developer, you have to pony up that $60+.

I used to but now I don't. All the underhanded, greedy tricks pulled by the industry this generation has really made me not care. Karma!

I can generally understand this issue from both viewpoints. They feel they're getting cheated on honest money

They are wrong for feeling that way. Used sales are perfectly legal and moral. They have no claim to money made from used sales, only the first sale.

and some games take sometimes years of planning and development and lot's a crappy hours to put together.

It's a job and every job requires many hours of work, the GM factory worker works many hours too but no one cries for him when people buy used cars, nor should they.

So when they see that the sales aren't what was expected, you can bet anything that they're going to come up with a way to ensure that gamers pay for a new version.

..by punishing the ones who do buy. Brilliant!

All they're doing is trying to make sure they get the full value for their game. They do honest work, why would you punish them for it?

Full value is not a constant. Most games aren't worth $60 and when people aren't willing to pay that much, punishing them with DRM, Online Passes and other such nonsense isn't the answer.

The interesting thins is that there are many used car lots owned by GM because they buy back (drivers trade in) their old products.
I think the publishers should try something like that if they want to curb what's going on.
That way Gamestop isn't getting the money they should be getting AND they get to control how much of the market is saturated with used games.
That would actually mak things better for the publisher AND the gamer...screw gamestop; they've been ripping everyone off anyway.

Buying used games hurts the developers that make games, it's as simple as that. No developer see's a single dime for a used game sale at Gamestop, or anywhere else that sells used games or if you happen to buy a game from a CL posting.

Nor should they make money from used sales. You could also say that buying a used car hurts GM factory workers too that is just how it is. I could say that the lack of used games would hurt the developers more because then fewer games would be bought. Indeed, many people purchase new games with money from trading in old ones. Many people also risk their $60 only because they have the option to get some of that money back if they don't like the game.

The car analogy doesn't work. Actually, there is no other market where used sales have such a big impact on the success of failure of the developing studio.

Cars - the used product is always inferiour to the new. ALWAYS. People buying used cars risk always to buy a car with damages.
Movies - the actual sales are not the only source of revenue, the success of a movie depends in most cases on the money it makes during the cinema runs.
Music - well, the artists are making most of their money with shows.
Games - no damages in buying used (if the distributor actually does his job and checks the copies he accepts), no new money is added into the market, distribution sales are the only source of money for both publisher and developer.

So basically, all other industries don't make money from used sales but they are not limited by only one source of revenue. And when they try to find another market like lets say... online passes or rewarding new buyers the customers start crying out how bad the industry actually is.

But schemes like that don't save the developers either.
Look at LA Noir; they chopped out half the game so it could be sold separately as dlc or be made vendor specific pre-order codes. Even with all that, the studio closed down anyway. THQ got rid of a bunch of people recently and they have online pass on everything.
The online pass, pre-order, dlc schemes don't help the devs at all. If the game has a big launch or a ton of people buy online passes, the devs don't get bonuses or anything. The dbags on the board at the publisher who come up with ideas like online pass get those bonuses.

I actually think some gamers (not too many of course) would be more accepting of it if the devs were given decent wages and bonuses for games that sell really well.
Also you left out books. When I was in college (before ebay) what's been happening between Gamers, Publishers, and Gamestop was happening between Students, Textbook publishers, and school bookstores. The only difference is that when ebay did come around the school bookstores weren't as smart as gamestop and didn't buy the cheaper books from ebay thus gouging the used prices even further.

 

[The Pinray]

I think, as always, the gaming community is bitching and moaning and over-exaggerating.

I see nothing wrong with this. If you buy it new, you have no problems. Just buy new. When you buy used, you give up your right to complain. You're no longer EA's or Sony's customer. You're Gamestop's or Best Buy's. They receive 100% of the profits on used sales. This is just a little way for the developer to make some money back.

Also, in Gamestop, at least, they only save you five to ten dollars from used games. Not worth the price of admission if you ask me.

Buy hey, I never buy used on principle... So this doesn't really affect me. Also, my disposable income is pretty alright. To keep up with the latest games it has to be... Christ, games are expensive.

EDIT: And I want to clarify that cutting out huge portions of the game is just dumb. Multiplayer, weapons, vehicles, etc I don't care about. But when you remove an entire quest-line (Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning) or make Multiplayer something near-necessary to success (Mass Effect 3), it is upsetting, though I still am not affected.

 

[Pandabearparade]

Tell me, what's the drawback in buying a used game?

When you buy a used game you run the risk of it being scratched, and locking up on you. Sometimes it even happens near the end of the game. Small chance, but a risk nonetheless. Also, you're usually going to get a beaten up box and no instruction manual.. again, not that big a deal, but I like my game display to look pretty.

 

[GonzoGamer]

But schemes like that don't save the developers either.
Look at LA Noir; they chopped out half the game so it could be sold separately as dlc or be made vendor specific pre-order codes. Even with all that, the studio closed down anyway. THQ got rid of a bunch of people recently and they have online pass on everything.
The online pass, pre-order, dlc schemes don't help the devs at all. If the game has a big launch or a ton of people buy online passes, the devs don't get bonuses or anything. The dbags on the board at the publisher who come up with ideas like online pass get those bonuses.

I actually think some gamers (not too many of course) would be more accepting of it if the devs were given decent wages and bonuses for games that sell really well.
Also you left out books. When I was in college (before ebay) what's been happening between Gamers, Publishers, and Gamestop was happening between Students, Textbook publishers, and school bookstores. The only difference is that when ebay did come around the school bookstores weren't as smart as gamestop and didn't buy the cheaper books from ebay thus gouging the used prices even further.

Oh don't get me wrong. Though I really don't care if a game has some additional codes I have to type in or not (I'm a PC gamers who never even bought used when it was possible) I see that the current model is also not going anywhere positive. I especially dislike the existance of the instance "publisher" since it is a not really necessary moneysink that should go directly to the studios developing the game.

@books: Books suffer from the fact that informations aren't always the same. A physics book from 192x may be topnotch then but today not so much. Add this to the normal decay and tadaa, all publishers have to do is release new prints with corrections or major upgrades . In some cases developers took this over with "gold editions" with all DLCs included (Oblivion, Fallout 3 + NV). But this system would require the game indsutry to look at the revenue that games make over years instead of over the first weeks / months after release.

Edit: The thing with THQ is that they start selling their game in pieces. Every two weeks skins for Space Marine for I don't know how much each, Multiplayer gamemodi for 7? each... I like their games but man, they are on the wrong way. Instead of working on the logetivity of their games they try to alienate all their customers by online passes, overpriced DLC and stupid multiplayer structures (p2p on PC is freakin dumb...).

Yea, Space Marine is one of those games I wanted to buy but just rented once I saw the online pass and jumble of launch dlc.
"Just so" a game from 198X isn't as relevant now. Hell, a game from 200X is about as relevant to the market as a Physics textbook from 192X is relevant to the college text market.

I think you're right and maybe if devs started collecting pre-order money a year before release the way gamestop does, they might not need the publishers but in the meantime they need publishers in the same way directors & producers need movie studios. Mostly payroll. I'm just surprised that the devs hand over so much control of the project rather than find individual investors: especially since it seems that the gamers are willing to hand over money so far ahead of time. The publishers obviously can't be trusted with the integrity of the product and the gamers would let them do what they want as each stake would be minimal.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

There is nothing wrong with pre order bonuses as long as they are only something more or less insignificant like the BF 3 ones or just single player weapons. Something that should be in the game anyway or online passes are bullshit.

To be honest my personal problem is more with DLC in general since a lot of it is not worth the label and it does not depreciate in value to a normal degree. I would like to see a return to expansion packs though.

 

[GonzoGamer]

It's a sad day when wanting the same treatment every other customer in every other industry gets is 'entitlement' (a word that is ridiculously overused, by the way). If a company charged secondhand buyers extra to unlock the special features portion of a DVD, do you think anyone would support them?

But in every other industry you get a inferiour product (used cars, tv's or whatever) or the actual distribution of the product is not the only source of revenue (movies and music)...

Tell me, what's the drawback in buying a used game?

Just a little edit: Don't get me wrong, I'm not against used sales. I just can see where the effords against it are coming from.

I can see where the efforts are coming from too but as Jim Sterling says, it seems like publishers are just using the stick method rather than the carrot dangling from the stick method. It seems like they feel that the gamers are the biggest pushovers in the equation so all the burdens fall on us.

As for the drawback. When I was poor, I bought GTA Vice City (with the strategy guide) for $7 on ebay (you wont get that, even now, at gamestop) but about a month or two later I was driving through one part of town and found that the game kept freezing on that one spot. It was too late to return it. Thankfully I had a disc Dr and that was able to fix it but there was always the chance that it couldn't. Disc Dr can't fix everything...unfortunately.

 

[Fishyash]

I would rather it be some crappy single player DLC than the entire multiplayer. I am personally not really against the fact you have to buy it...

What I am against though is the absolutely retarded idea of putting in codes, logging into this & that website etc., even if you buy new.

Who the hell thought that would help? You pay $60 for a brand new game. Now you have to connect to this stupid code registration, put in your code and then download an update just to play the damn game online.

I am hoping kingdoms of amalur not only offer "bonus" inconsequential content, but make sure that you don't have to put in a stupid code to get it even if you buy brand new.

 

[Epona]

Buying used games hurts the developers that make games, it's as simple as that. No developer see's a single dime for a used game sale at Gamestop, or anywhere else that sells used games or if you happen to buy a game from a CL posting.

Nor should they make money from used sales. You could also say that buying a used car hurts GM factory workers too that is just how it is. I could say that the lack of used games would hurt the developers more because then fewer games would be bought. Indeed, many people purchase new games with money from trading in old ones. Many people also risk their $60 only because they have the option to get some of that money back if they don't like the game.

The car analogy doesn't work. Actually, there is no other market where used sales have such a big impact on the success of failure of the developing studio.

Cars - the used product is always inferiour to the new. ALWAYS. People buying used cars risk always to buy a car with damages.
Movies - the actual sales are not the only source of revenue, the success of a movie depends in most cases on the money it makes during the cinema runs.
Music - well, the artists are making most of their money with shows.
Games - no damages in buying used (if the distributor actually does his job and checks the copies he accepts), no new money is added into the market, distribution sales are the only source of money for both publisher and developer.

So basically, all other industries don't make money from used sales but they are not limited by only one source of revenue. And when they try to find another market like lets say... online passes or rewarding new buyers the customers start crying out how bad the industry actually is.

The car example was simply comparing developers to factory workers, could be anything, cars, couches, etc... The analogy is fine. The game industry is not special.

The wear and tear on a product is irrelevant as far as the First Sale Doctrine is concerned. A used game could be in perfect condition or it could be missing the manual and box, it doesn't matter and Gamestop will charge the same price either way. A used book could be in perfect condition too. A used car could be in perfect condition too if it was rarely driven. It doesn't change the First Sale Doctrine.

 

[Phlakes]

Yes, it's definitely about perspective, that's the point. A developer/publisher should take into account the perspective of the consumer. If they feel like they're being punished, they're a lot less likely to buy a game than if they feel like they're just not getting something extra.

But if perspective is the only difference then how can publishers and devs do anything about it? There will always be entitled assholes that want every bit of a game disregarding the fact that they gave jack back to the devs. I have two recent examples:

Batman Arkham City had the Catwoman DLC for new buyers. 3 missions with Catwoman not really related to the story. People cried out how that punishes the used buyer. Kingdom of Amalur, a little content free for new buyers, people cried out how that punishes the used buyer.

Well, actually there is simply no difference between rewarding new buyers and punishing used buyers. Some used buyers will see every action in favor of new buyers as actions against them and I could not care less what those people think.

It's about reducing the damage as much as possible. Either way people will feel screwed over, but if they're not being actively punished it'll be reduced a bit. Still significant, but less.