Poll: Have any of you ever actually bought an Online Pass?
- Thread starter GonzoGamer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Good point.Gorilla Gunk said:
There are other ways around it too.
My wife wanted to keep the copy of Sims 3 she rented for the ps3 and gamefly sent the code along with the case & instructions. So we got a used copy of the game AND the online pass code for no extra charge.
I have not, but for different reasons. I only buy DLC for games I really love (and not even for every one of those games). Those games are ones I almost certainly bought on release, so I don't need an online pass.
If I bought a game used and ended up loving it and wanting more? Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. It depends on the content:value ratio.
If I bought a game used and ended up loving it and wanting more? Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. It depends on the content:value ratio.
I very rarely buy used games, and I'm not a huge fan of multiplayer, so no I haven't. But my brother is a fan, so if I bought the latest and greatest online shooter used and had to get an online pass so my brother could play online, I'd be willing.
What about the option "Yes, once, because I got funnelled into it"?
My little brother and I both have our own Xbox's with Live. We both split the costs of BF3 to buy a NEW copy on release day. Since I paid marginally more and his money is pocket money, I played first. I used the pass and subsequently had to pay for him to play online. This is why I hate Project 10 Dollar, EA; why I think you suck - and I didn't even buy USED. All I wanted to do was share my copy with someone else in my household, who paid their worth of the game, whom only wanted to play every now and then, even more for him to play online at all. He's touched it rarely since but he was willing to pay his costs of the copy at launch. Then you go and screw ME over, the majority owner.
I miss the good old days where you only needed to pay for a copy and you could use it within your house on any console.
My little brother and I both have our own Xbox's with Live. We both split the costs of BF3 to buy a NEW copy on release day. Since I paid marginally more and his money is pocket money, I played first. I used the pass and subsequently had to pay for him to play online. This is why I hate Project 10 Dollar, EA; why I think you suck - and I didn't even buy USED. All I wanted to do was share my copy with someone else in my household, who paid their worth of the game, whom only wanted to play every now and then, even more for him to play online at all. He's touched it rarely since but he was willing to pay his costs of the copy at launch. Then you go and screw ME over, the majority owner.
I miss the good old days where you only needed to pay for a copy and you could use it within your house on any console.
That?s actually incorrect. Not every record. The hardware sales fell by a long shot. You can check vgchart or even wikipedia; which surprisingly has accurate info on that.NuclearShadow said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3#Sales_and_production_costs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360#Reception_and_sales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2#Sales
The ps3 & 360 COMBINED are pretty far behind the ps2 when it was as old.
Some games grew in popularity and with online gaming many want to get the more competitive games at launch (so they don?t have such a steep learning curve) so some franchises (like CoD) have had some record breaking launches but the fact remains that there are fewer people in a position to buy a big game at launch.
That smaller base of consumer I think has more to do with the typical slump in sales charts than used games.
BUT, if you are right and the gamers that did buy into the next gen are just buying more games, then why the hell do the publishers need to fuck around with online passes and launch/pre-order dlc? They should be satisfied.
You are right that corporations are in the business of making money so if the gamers seem willing to pay whatever fees and extra costs they can think of, they're just going to think of more schemes that will cost us even more money; that's why I don't buy any game with online pass or launch/pre-order dlc. It's also why I would never buy a console that had a monthly fee. The do just want to see how far they can push us and it seems that most gamers can be pushed pretty damn far.
No, and I never will. I won't even buy a game new if it has an online pass, because it's a fucking insult.
GonzoGamer said:
I'm not blaming anyone for anything, I'm merely expressing my growing disdain towards this "protesting absolutely everything" attitude we're cultivating. When I say people that are "crying" I mean the people who are claiming to boycott various things in gaming, for which online passes/DRM/Day one DLC is the posterchild. I'm beginning to honestly hate the idea of boycotting because too many people are not doing it right and are hurting the good guys more than the publishers. All I ever hear is "I will "boycott" everything this company makes but still buy the game used and give no money to the devs who made this game I like, while still showing I don't have the spine to actually inconvenience myself to send my message. I am Joe Boycotter."
What I'd define as a "serious" situation is what people like Jim Sterling or others I've seen here and other places postulate in their hyperbolic red-hued rage: That one day EA or someone else will rope off big parts of the main game's campaign, such as the ending, behind an online pass of some sort that costs comfort to the gamer (be it money or an always-on internet connection.
THAT is serious. I would hate to see it get to that point, but frankly, I don't think that'll ever happen. If anything got the "revolution" started it would be that. It's too ludicrous an idea to honestly entertain even if you were Bobby Kotick, and even if some AAA publishers were stupid enough to try, that precedent simply will not latch on at all with any other sane publisher, except the other greedy mega-billionaire ones. But even then, that's what, a handful of publishers? The industry will not die. Gamers can live without a handful of games, and the real protesting will begin and it will actually be worth it this time. I honestly have nothing to give as proof for my opinion but my faith in gamers. You push someone far enough and they will push back.
An always-on connection DRM is shitty and worth boycotting because that is a real inconvenience that not everyone can afford...But free Catwoman content that did nothing for the story? Free Amalur Day one DLC in a 200+ hour game? RE: Revelations solely for being made by some of those meanies who cancelled my super-sewious blue anime robot kid game?! For heaven's sake with these "protesters." Maybe I'm just listening to the extremists and that's what's making me sad. Who knows?
Any game I care about enough to play online, I'll get new. Not that I care about multiplayer, except in rare, rare cases (Assassin's Creed is different from singleplayer and an interesting idea, and I'm curious to see exactly what Mass Effect 3 will do because I've followed the series with interest so far).
I'd like to mention a curious case study in the online pass debacle. Driver: San Francisco used the Uplay Passport (Ubisoft's version of Project Ten Dollar) to block off online content...until they got enough complaints about retail copies being shipped with invalid codes, then they made it free for everyone. Great if you haven't already bought an online pass, not sure if they had any plans to compensate those who already purchased one.
It does set a unique bit of precedent, though. Hard, empirical proof that online passes are not required. A lesson that Ubisoft would completely ignore when AC: Revelations dropped five or six months later. Still, we do have at least one small victory in this greater debate.
It does set a unique bit of precedent, though. Hard, empirical proof that online passes are not required. A lesson that Ubisoft would completely ignore when AC: Revelations dropped five or six months later. Still, we do have at least one small victory in this greater debate.
I know you're not blaming anyone. It's the publishers who are blaming the gamers for low sales when I really don't think they would otherwise be getting those sales even if you couldn't buy games used because when you look at the numbers, there just aren't as many ps3 & 360 owners as there were just ps2 owners at this point. They can also blame retailers who limit new stock in favor of the used stock that they make more profit off of. But no, they blame and try and make the difference from the consumer and I think that's insulting right off the base of it.AyreonMaiden said:
I think I see where our perspective really differs here. I do think that it will eventually happen (and some suspect it already has with games like Fallout 3; not that I agree or care because Fallout 3 had a shitton of content to begin with): that publishers will start peeling more and more substantial portions of gameplay and maybe even the ending to be sold as dlc and auctioned off as retailer specific pre-order "bonuses." Look at LA Noir. That game still had an ending but there was definitely a substantial amount of content that was peeled away from the game so they could have pre-order bonuses for different retailers at launch and to be sold separately later. They're already doing it with the online portions of games and that's with games where the main meat of the game IS the online. Look at Battlefield 3. Everything about that game sucked except for the parts that were locked but that was just stupid on their part as it definitely cost them some sales.
You also seem to think that most gamers will actually be up in arms if that ever happens when all the evidence that I've ever seen suggests the exact opposite: that gamers (even if the ending and/or a large portion of content were being "passed" or sold separately) will remain complacent and some will even make excuses for the publisher and tell people to stop whining....then they generally over/mis-use the word "entitlement" thinking that it somehow wins their argument when it only makes them look pants on head retarded.
Really, I will have stopped gaming long before that point so I wont care. But good luck with rallying that lot because they're just going to (try and) hurl a lot of abuse at you and praise their publishers & platform developers.
- Nov 27, 2009
- 5,792
- 712
- 118
- Country
- The Dreamlands
- Gender
- Lose 1d20 sanity points.
I haven't even bought a game since before the whole game pass thing started, but considered that when I did buy games I never bought DLC, so I guess I probably will never bother to, though that being said I really don't like to buy stuff online, for some reason it costs me a lot to click accept, even if the game costs just 1 penny, though to be fair I don't buy games anymore because I don't really have anything to play them on.