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

[Portal Operater]

Even though they haven't really bothered me too much the online passes are pretty bad and are handed in a terrible way. No one cares if I buy used book, movie, car, ect, but if I buy a used game I am evil. Sure, it's an important to get money but they could try going about it in a way that doesn't come off as insulting. Online passes don't really help anyone. If you bought the game new, you get to wait to play the game with a long ass code. Some people rent a game to see if they like it, and multiplayer may be a big part for them, but it's locked,(some games like assassin's creed do have might have a trial of some kind though if you're lucky) and so they are out of luck. Which could possibly mean a sale. It's better to have interest in a game than no interest at all.

I don't pre-order anything as I wait for the price to drop so I don't have much of an opinion on it. Although I feel some people who do are odd. Why someone would an in game weapon as compared to 10 actual dollars (like with pre-ordering with Amazon) is beyond me.

 

[GonzoGamer]

"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.

This is actually something that is simply put a mistake. To see why you just need to look at steam whenever some old game finds its way on the platform. Or the fact that there are always old games in sales top 10 (right now: CS:S, Double Fine Pack (Psychonauts and Costume Quest), and Psychonauts on it's own). Than there is gog.com who basically exist on old games.

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.

Yeah, selfpublishing is a risk. But overall: I can accept most of what you are saying except one thing:
Collecting pre-order money is extrem risky if the project is not on a financial stable ground. Project Zomboid is a good example that it is not always as flawless as with Minecraft. I am pretty sure that in the future we will have at least one person who'll try to imitate Notch and then hogs all the money without doing jack (like the guys who "worked" on the Fallout MMO did with Bethesda / Zenimax).

Is it really any greater risk than pre-ordering a game now? Having pre-ordered New Vegas on the PS3, I don't think so. I don't think the people who pre-ordered DNF would think it's a bigger risk either. People paid money ahead of time and were really disappointed. Sure you got something but New Vegas was more frustrating than fun.

And yes, on the PC it's a whole 'nother game. Ps2 games aren't too relevant to most ps3 owners, unless you own a launch console. And it doesn't seem like Nintendo has been too successful in selling NES games on the Wii. Of course any sales are profit at this point but they don't sell wildly or anything. Essentially, they are about As relevant as old science texts: some people will remember some of them but for most of them, people wont.

As for the difference between rewarding new buyers and punishing used buyers, it may be a fine line but there's definitely a line. I think that line depends on if what's being withheld is actual gameplay. If I'm missing out on an item or outfit, it doesn't diminish the experience of the rental, when I'm locked out of a whole gameplay mode (like with BF3 which locks the most compelling part of the game) not only do I miss what might be the best part but I also feel insulted and don't want to purchase it anyway.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Is it really any greater risk than pre-ordering a game now? Having pre-ordered New Vegas on the PS3, I don't think so. I don't think the people who pre-ordered DNF would think it's a bigger risk either. People paid money ahead of time and were really disappointed. Sure you got something but New Vegas was more frustrating than fun.

I did not mean that it is a risk for the customer .

Selfpublishing is not something that every development studio can do because they need funding. Getting the money is a story on itself. Selfpublishing by reliance of only preorder money is a bigger risk because it's not a controlable amoung.

Of course you didn't. My minds just all over the place today. ; P
They couldn't rely completely on pre-orders, they would have to find investors too. The publisher is mostly the investor. Once the money is secured, all the other crap they do can be done by anyone. But if they got individual investors, I doubt they would band together and make demands like the title include Online Pass.
It's not realistic anyway, publishers are too much of an ingrown part of the industry just like studios are too big a part of movies. Occasionally you have someone that sucessfully breaks the rules (like Noch or George Lucas) but not often.

 

[GonzoGamer]

It's basically just exposing console gamers to the same kinds of DRM that us PC gamers have been dealing with for the last 6 or 7 years... i.e. content is restricted or withheld if you don't have the activation code and you have to connect online to get the content.

So.... console gaming is just merging with PC gaming in that the used games market is being killed off slowly. (it's already basically dead on PC due to DRM).

That's a peeve for a whole 'nother thread:
Consoles are getting all the crappy parts of PC gaming (like single use codes hardware specs and buggy releases getting patched later...sometimes much later) but not getting any of the good parts (like better prices mods & tweaking).
It's like they're taking our cake & eating it too.

 

[FrozenSkye]

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).

But it is true. Even if the publisher has paid off the developer and reaps the full amount of the sale, THOSE SALES determine the strength of the developer in the Publishers eyes. You want more games from a certain dev, show the publisher that their worth marketing. Which means forking over that cash.

 

[GonzoGamer]

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).

But it is true. Even if the publisher has paid off the developer and reaps the full amount of the sale, THOSE SALES determine the strength of the developer in the Publishers eyes. You want more games from a certain dev, show the publisher that their worth marketing. Which means forking over that cash.

And the point remains that these schemes may hurt more than help.
Online pass didn't help THQ who just laid off a bunch of people. And the clusterfuck of retail specific dlc for LA Noir (the reason I didn't purchase it)didn't help Bondi stay in business.
Though it wouldn't convince me, your argument would be completely valid if these schemes seemed to actually help the devs.

 

[Soxafloppin]

I don't see the problem with a game having some free DLC bundled with new copies, no.

If the game locks out a huge chunk of the game then yea, I'd be pretty pissed.