Poll: Et Tu Space Marine - $10 Pass

[GonzoGamer]

And then there was L.A. Noire, which launched in the middle of the PSN crisis, and I had to wait about 2 weeks before getting the bonus cases. Ugh.

Not to mention that even though you bought it new, you still only got one of the however many "bonus" cases they had set aside for pre-ordering.

I only buy used games from yesteryears. They simply work when you put them in the console...

Well. I think you're going to wish you were a little more vocal about this issue several years from now.

 

[Seventh Actuality]

Yea. I know how investments work. I?ve invested directly into several businesses. And never have I ever had to insist that a product is sandbagged or a service hamstringed so I can get a bigger payout/higher dividends/bonuses.

This is the reason that buying a used game is not the same as buying a physical product used.

When you buy a car, a computer or a piece of furniture, the materials used to make that product represent the majority of the cost of creating it. With a game, the physical disc it's stored on and the box it comes in are a negligible fraction of its production cost. The real investment is all in the software.

With something purely physical, buying used is a clear tradeoff between the lower price and the additional wear and tear. There is no wear and tear on software; buying a used game is functionally the same here is buying it new, but with absolutely none of the money going towards offsetting the investment in making it. So, you get the company's product, exactly like new, but they don't get any money for it.

And so, project ten dollar. The games company are forced to "hamstring" their product so that the people who financed and worked on the game get some actual money from a transaction in which their product is sold, the same as new, without any money going to them.

 

[AlternatePFG]

PC player here. Can't buy it used no matter what. Still think 10$ passes are bullshit though. Even worse when it's that plus day 1 DLC. (Dragon Age 2)

 

[GonzoGamer]

Yea. I know how investments work. I?ve invested directly into several businesses. And never have I ever had to insist that a product is sandbagged or a service hamstringed so I can get a bigger payout/higher dividends/bonuses.

This is the reason that buying a used game is not the same as buying a physical product used.

When you buy a car, a computer or a piece of furniture, the materials used to make that product represent the majority of the cost of creating it. With a game, the physical disc it's stored on and the box it comes in are a negligible fraction of its production cost. The real investment is all in the software.

With something purely physical, buying used is a clear tradeoff between the lower price and the additional wear and tear. There is no wear and tear on software; buying a used game is functionally the same here is buying it new, but with absolutely none of the money going towards offsetting the investment in making it. So, you get the company's product, exactly like new, but they don't get any money for it.

And so, project ten dollar. The games company are forced to "hamstring" their product so that the people who financed and worked on the game get some actual money from a transaction in which their product is sold, the same as new, without any money going to them.

Then why don't library books have a couple of chapters missing?
And I understand the need to make money back on the investment but why do they go after people who obviously don't have any money rather than the huge retail chain that is actually causing all the problems with the used market.
They weren't complaining ten years ago when there were a variety of retailers who weren't able to completely gouge the market.

Well. I think you're going to wish you were a little more vocal about this issue several years from now.

When my SNES is still working fine and everyone's Xbox RROD'd?

Touche.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Depends, really. For example, I didn't mind the $10 pass for Dragon Age or Rock Band: Green Day, because what they added in was not necessary for the game in general. You could easily get through DA without Shale, and you could play Green Day without exporting to other games.

However, when it locks out stuff on the actual disc, like RAGE...Yeah, that is a different story. Fuck iD for that bullshit.

 

[Seventh Actuality]

Then why don't library books have a couple of chapters missing?
And I understand the need to make money back on the investment but why do they go after people who obviously don't have any money rather than the huge retail chain that is actually causing all the problems with the used market.

Library books DO have reduced functionality compared to buying your own copy. You only have it for a limited time, which brings in a whole bunch of other drawbacks (can't start it in your own time, can't put it down and pick it up later).

Why go after the people who buy used games? Well...what makes you think they have a choice? The law is on the side of GameStop, and any attempt to come to an agreement as you suggested earlier would require retailers like GameStop to meet them halfway.

Your victim complex is seriously misplaced here. Penny Arcade said it best: when you buy a game used, you are not their customer, you are GameStop's customer. You expect consideration from games companies and offer nothing as a potential customer. If you can't afford a triple A release on launch day, you don't get it. That's how the world should work. You don't have a right to buy a functionally identical product for less money, none of which goes to the makers. Games are a luxury good, and if you can't afford them, there are cheaper games, free games and games with tiered pricing. Watch the Extra Credits episode on this issue. Not getting the best products as soon as they come out is just a part of being poor.

Trying to characterize every publisher as the bastard offspring of Gordon Gecko and one of the Ferengi might help salve your conscience, but it's not in any way an argument in favour of used games.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Bah, it's an un-original way to make money off of used sales.

As I've said before, what they need to do is give a bonus to people who buy new. Not take away from those who buy second hand.

 

[AlternatePFG]

Bah, it's an un-original way to make money off of used sales.

As I've said before, what they need to do is give a bonus to people who buy new. Not take away from those who buy second hand.

Isn't that pretty much the same difference though?

I mean, if you buy used, you're missing out on that bonus content.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Bah, it's an un-original way to make money off of used sales.

As I've said before, what they need to do is give a bonus to people who buy new. Not take away from those who buy second hand.

Isn't that pretty much the same difference though?

I mean, if you buy used, you're missing out on that bonus content.

Not really, no.

Imagine that if you bought a shooter game used, you didn't get to use shotguns or pistols. That's cutting out a feture that most people would expect.

But imagine if you got it new, you could change the sound the guns made when they were shot. It's extra content that is a reward.

Use the carrot, not the stick.

 

[somonels]

How about I pay $10 for just multiplayer, sounds fair to me.
If they are going to slice up the content then let us at least choose which we like.

 

[AlternatePFG]

Not really, no.

Imagine that if you bought a shooter game used, you didn't get to use shotguns or pistols. That's cutting out a feture that most people would expect.

But imagine if you got it new, you could change the sound the guns made when they were shot. It's extra content that is a reward.

Use the carrot, not the stick.

That's reasonable I guess. Stuff like weapon skins and other cosmetic awards that don't really effect the gameplay.

 

[ZeZZZZevy]

Penny Arcade said it best: when you buy a game used, you are not their customer, you are GameStop's customer. You expect consideration from games companies and offer nothing as a potential customer. If you can't afford a triple A release on launch day, you don't get it. That's how the world should work. You don't have a right to buy a functionally identical product for less money, none of which goes to the makers. Games are a luxury good, and if you can't afford them, there are cheaper games, free games and games with tiered pricing. Watch the Extra Credits episode on this issue. Not getting the best products as soon as they come out is just a part of being poor.

This is and will always be my opinion on the issue. People need to remember who they're buying what from. If you buy a used car made by Ford from a used dealership, if that car has a problem you don't go to Ford, you go to the dealership. Same thing with games, if you buy a used game that has content cut, you shouldn't be blaming the developer, you should be blaming Gamestop for selling you an inferior product for $5 off.

Or better yet, don't be mad at all, and recognize that buying a used game for $10 less doesn't entitle you to the same experience as someone who paid full price for a new copy.

EDIT: good sir, your poll is very biased in one direction

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Well you are buying it used for less and to be honest you are still getting the game the cheaper over all. It is not my favourite or preferred system of doing in fact a better system would be to give people who buy a game new free DLC. So all those small DLC like skins and weapons would be for free. I think this would be good as it would encourage companies to make DLC worth buying as in make expansions like they used to and stop with ridiculous prices for about 3 maps or a weapon skin.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Library books DO have reduced functionality compared to buying your own copy. You only have it for a limited time, which brings in a whole bunch of other drawbacks (can't start it in your own time, can't put it down and pick it up later).

Why go after the people who buy used games? Well...what makes you think they have a choice? The law is on the side of GameStop, and any attempt to come to an agreement as you suggested earlier would require retailers like GameStop to meet them halfway.

Your victim complex is seriously misplaced here. Penny Arcade said it best: when you buy a game used, you are not their customer, you are GameStop's customer. You expect consideration from games companies and offer nothing as a potential customer. If you can't afford a triple A release on launch day, you don't get it. That's how the world should work. You don't have a right to buy a functionally identical product for less money, none of which goes to the makers. Games are a luxury good, and if you can't afford them, there are cheaper games, free games and games with tiered pricing. Watch the Extra Credits episode on this issue. Not getting the best products as soon as they come out is just a part of being poor.

Trying to characterize every publisher as the bastard offspring of Gordon Gecko and one of the Ferengi might help salve your conscience, but it's not in any way an argument in favour of used games.

They might not be gangsters but they aren't some poor battered mom & pop shops either. These are big businesses that (no matter what you believe they say) make a hell of a lot of money and they do take advantage of their consumers and their employees. You can deny it all you want but board members are the same ruthless pricks across all industries. Trust me on that.

Also, I'm not the victim here. I can buy whatever new game I want. However, if this crap was going on 15 years ago when I was poor myself, I would've probably lost interest in the hobby and thus I wouldn't be buying consoles and new games now. Yes, your right about not getting a new product as soon as it comes out is a part of being poor...and that's why when I was poor, I bought used games.

And the publishers definitely have a choice. Gamestop's practices are legal but they aren't fair by any stretch of the imagination and it would be all too easy to undercut/overcut their prices/trade ins. One that I can think of is for them to set up trade in/used game programs of their own. They wouldn't have to try too hard to give gamers a better value than gamestop and they could have a lot more control. That's just one idea that doesn't screw over gamers with low incomes and will even encourage those gamers to buy their future products directly from them: used or new. I don't trade in either but if I did, I would do it that way.

And I'm wondering if you have ever been to a library in your life. You can keep books for as long as you want, it's called renewing. So you can put it down and pick it back up later, you just have to let them know.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Bah, it's an un-original way to make money off of used sales.

As I've said before, what they need to do is give a bonus to people who buy new. Not take away from those who buy second hand.

Isn't that pretty much the same difference though?

I mean, if you buy used, you're missing out on that bonus content.

Not really, no.

Imagine that if you bought a shooter game used, you didn't get to use shotguns or pistols. That's cutting out a feture that most people would expect.

But imagine if you got it new, you could change the sound the guns made when they were shot. It's extra content that is a reward.

Use the carrot, not the stick.

Yea.
That I'm down with. I think Fallout New Vegas did that well. If you bought it new, you started off with a unique piece of armor, a weird gun, and a few stimpacs or something. That's a reasonable bonus and it did encourage me to pre-order...well, that and the fact that Fallout 3 is my favorite game from this gen.

I wasn't quite so pleased when R* sectioned out game content (cases & collection quests) for LA Noir pre-orders and DLC. That bumped it down to a rental for me.

Bonus items and swag is appropriate; gameplay content not appropriate. And multiplayer is gameplay content... now a days it's often the majority of the content.

 

[Paragon Fury]

You get the Elite Pass with any new copy of the game.

And, like Homefront, you're allowed to play the multiplayer as much as you want without the pass; you just can't advance past Level 5. If you decide that you like the multiplayer enough to keep playing, that $10 isn't really that bad, especially if you got the game $20-$30 cheaper.

 

[Therumancer]

I think people are overlooking important aspects of this.

One of the big problems with these $10 programs is simply that games are very exensive, and the trade in abillity is one of the few things that justifies the price tag to an initial purchuser. Spending/risking $60 for a game is mitigated somewhat by the abillity to trade it in for around half price (in many cases) for money towards your next game purchuse. By trying to cut into the used game sales and destroy that market they are reducing the value of their own product.


All arguements aside, the bottom line here is greed. The gaming industry has been making billions of dollars, it's just that the bean counters are running the show and seem to think that without the used game market all of those people buying used would be paying them for new copies. They also seem to work under the assumption that people that are buying used games aren't buying them because those are the prices they can actually afford, but to screw them out of money much like pirates.

If these $10 gimmicks continue to grow, they are going to reduce part of the value of the games to the initial purchuser. Many people aren't going to be as willing to risk the $60 price tag from titles they know they won't get as much trade in value from.

I think this generation of games is also going to be a sort of "lost generation" down the road due to greed, which is kind of sad. The games industry seems to have overlooked the entire gaming collector's market, and that a lot of people buy games and keep them for similar reasons to comic book collectors. As you've seen, certain titles can wind up going for hundreds of dollars used down the road. Digital gimmicks for activation, downloading the content, or just unlocking all the features of a game mean that many of these games will be outright unplayable, or misisng content, especially if the digital support services they need ever disappear. In many cases even setting up private servers to replace company ones isn't going to be practical. This is a minor point, but still an important one, as the video game collector's market had been growing, but right now I think it's been affected by the actions of the industry as far as this generation goes.

 

[MetalDooley]

So, you get the company's product, exactly like new, but they don't get any money for it.

And why should they?They've already been paid for that product.What make the games industry so special that they feel they should be paid more than once for the same product?Because that's all that project $10/online passes are...a way for companies to make more money from something they've already been paid for