These kinds of tactics used on the (below) average consumer tend to make me feel resentful. So while I was planning on buying it new out of nostalgia, I?m buying a used copy instead but my reasons for buying a used copy (if I?m going to be honest with myself) are admittedly spiteful. When someone tries to force me to do something, my natural instinct is to resist. If someone is reasonable and polite about it, I have a tendency comply.
Hopefully it is just a rumor.
A lot of people say that the gta4 dlc was reasonably priced and here?s my take on it: if you missed gta4 and just bought the episodes disc, you got a good deal there, but if you bought gta4 and bought a couple of mission packs at $20 a pop, you got ripped off. But I think most dlc is a ripoff.
Maybe you (and most other gamers) are too trusting. And maybe that?s why so many game companies have come up with schemes like this: they work so well on gamers. Maybe most gamers don?t look at these companies as leeches but as buddies that just want to help them be entertained. And that?s why so many gamers are willing to fork over extra money every time they?re asked for it. Maybe this is why prices for gamers products & services go up so rapidly: hell, they didn?t even wait until the next console cycle to raise the price of xblgold. Gamers are very soft consumers that are easily pushed around and the companies that cater to them are aware of this & they take advantage of it.
People that Buy used in general wouldn't buy the game new.Meaning that if there were NO USED GAMES they still wouldn't buy it ( unless it was like 20$ new ). So again developpers technically aren't Losing anything.
While I get what you're saying and I agree that the publishers' war on used games is pretty pointless, I don't think this is the case anymore... when shopping at gamestop.
The problem is that there's usually only a $2-3 difference between the used and the new price. So while someone buying a used game 10 years ago would have good reason to if it was just an impulse buy or they needed to save $15-30 (I used to get some good deals back in the day before gamestop's metamonopoly), now a days, you may as well buy the new copy... unless you need bus fare home. That's one of the reasons I don't really buy used games much any more.
These kinds of tactics used on the (below) average consumer tend to make me feel resentful. So while I was planning on buying it new out of nostalgia, I?m buying a used copy instead but my reasons for buying a used copy (if I?m going to be honest with myself) are admittedly spiteful. When someone tries to force me to do something, my natural instinct is to resist. If someone is reasonable and polite about it, I have a tendency comply.
As I said before, I asked my ex coworkers at GameStop about that, and they've shown me that no such e-mails about the online passes exist.
Unless I see it in my game case on launch day, I will see this as rumor and nothing more. If you're smart, however, you'll wait to hear a confirmation first, then make your choice.
As for me, it's Day 1 for me, online pass or not.
A lot of people say that the gta4 dlc was reasonably priced and here?s my take on it: if you missed gta4 and just bought the episodes disc, you got a good deal there, but if you bought gta4 and bought a couple of mission packs at $20 a pop, you got ripped off. But I think most dlc is a ripoff.
That's your opinion. As for me, I want developers to expand the content of their games instead of making version 2.o or 2.5 like Capcom seems to love doing these days.
As for sequels, if you must, MUST, cut content, bring it back as DLC later at a low price. Not like Fable 3, with the download-to-customize-your-PC DLC either. THAT is a ripoff, not the downloadable episodes as you would like to think.
Maybe you (and most other gamers) are too trusting. And maybe that?s why so many game companies have come up with schemes like this: they work so well on gamers. Maybe most gamers don?t look at these companies as leeches but as buddies that just want to help them be entertained. And that?s why so many gamers are willing to fork over extra money every time they?re asked for it. Maybe this is why prices for gamers products & services go up so rapidly: hell, they didn?t even wait until the next console cycle to raise the price of xblgold.
Believe me. I could argue this all day to the opposite side, and likely win. However, I will say this: Being bitter about DLC to this degree, thinking companies who make it are conning us, and believing that consumers are too trusting to not see overcharges is just closed minded thinking, and not the best way to make your case for buying used in this thread. To me, it just makes you sound paranoid.
As for Live, why not look into the costs of running a mass of dedicated servers and the costs of running an online service that supports about 12 million people sometime. It's not cheap, and Sony is losing money by keeping the PNS free of charge. Even with Plus, which does offer things Live does not, they are still losing money since the best it does is give a discount on virtual content, not better server access/connectivity to the service.
It's simple economics in terms of the cost of Live versus PSN, not because Microsoft is run by greedy people. Also,unlike WoW, that 15 dollars covers far more than one game, if you truly are dedicated to using it to the fullest. However, from what I can see written here, this is not the case with you.
I don't play on XBOX Live often, but when I DO use it, my experience is much more satisfying than on the PNS because of the fees paid to upkeep things.
Gamers are very soft consumers that are easily pushed around and the companies that cater to them are aware of this & they take advantage of it.
Maybe to you, but to me, I see the reverse: That the loudest segments of consumers in this industry make some issues more than they really are, kind of like spoiled children when they don't get their way.
If you wish to be vitriolic in regards to those previous topics in this thread, I can't stop you, but your opinion is not that of the majority, and remember that this online pass is still a rumor right now.
I know that my opinion as a gamer is not common (I pointed that out in my last reply to you) but that?s kind of my point: that gamers (the majority of us, but according to the poll, not as many as I thought) are willing to pay for whatever is asked of them. That encourages game companies & retailers to ask for more; I don?t get what?s so hard to understand about that. It?s common business practice, it?s just usually practiced by monopolies, not companies that have competition.
I?m not saying that R* shouldn?t have expanded gta4, I just don?t think the mission packs were worth $20 to anyone who had already played gta4. If they were $10, I would?ve considered them reasonable like the Fallout 3 or Borderlands dlc which provided much more content at half the price. You said yourself that content should be brought back in at a low price. I agree.
I don?t believe all dlc is a con but you have to admit that there?s a huge difference between paying $10 for Zombie Island of Dr Ned and paying $10 for something like an online pass.
And rave about XBL all you want I do think it was pretty unreasonable for them to raise the price of it in the middle of the same console cycle. It wasn?t necessary and it doesn?t seem to have led to any massive improvements or additions to the service. SO yes, that was just a money grab by them and a well positioned one because many people fell for it.
And I love how what other consumers consider being savvy, most gamers consider paranoid, cheap, or spoiled. That level of defensiveness and blind faith in these corporations betrays the sad truth. This is why I see gamers as consumers that are easily bullied into handing over their lunch money for very little (or in some cases, nothing) in return.
I still don't really get how they got all these ppl to go along with the concept of "used sales are bad".
it's an economic system that's present for pretty much every single (non-perishable)thing you could ever buy.
you can buy used cars, used books, used movies, used clothes, used furniture..
but video games?? HELL NO! publishers and developers can't possibly deal with this like every other industry on the planet can, no, they need special treatment.
Well, I'm not getting it because I really hate the MK franchise. But, why bar people from playing online unless you buy new?! The sad thing people are going to buy it anyway.
These kinds of tactics used on the (below) average consumer tend to make me feel resentful. So while I was planning on buying it new out of nostalgia, I?m buying a used copy instead but my reasons for buying a used copy (if I?m going to be honest with myself) are admittedly spiteful. When someone tries to force me to do something, my natural instinct is to resist. If someone is reasonable and polite about it, I have a tendency comply.
Hopefully it is just a rumor.
A lot of people say that the gta4 dlc was reasonably priced and here?s my take on it: if you missed gta4 and just bought the episodes disc, you got a good deal there, but if you bought gta4 and bought a couple of mission packs at $20 a pop, you got ripped off. But I think most dlc is a ripoff.
Maybe you (and most other gamers) are too trusting. And maybe that?s why so many game companies have come up with schemes like this: they work so well on gamers. Maybe most gamers don?t look at these companies as leeches but as buddies that just want to help them be entertained. And that?s why so many gamers are willing to fork over extra money every time they?re asked for it. Maybe this is why prices for gamers products & services go up so rapidly: hell, they didn?t even wait until the next console cycle to raise the price of xblgold. Gamers are very soft consumers that are easily pushed around and the companies that cater to them are aware of this & they take advantage of it.
...but that?s kind of my point: that gamers (the majority of us, but according to the poll, not as many as I thought) are willing to pay for whatever is asked of them. That encourages game companies & retailers to ask for more; I don?t get what?s so hard to understand about that. It?s common business practice, it?s just usually practiced by monopolies, not companies that have competition.
OK. That's just wrong, both written and in explanation. As a Business major, I know you're wrong on more than just that last sentence alone. But, I shall detail more as this goes on.
However, you want the term Oligopoly when talking about Live/PSN/Wii Ware.
I?m not saying that R* shouldn?t have expanded gta4, I just don?t think the mission packs were worth $20 to anyone who had already played gta4. If they were $10, I would?ve considered them reasonable like the Fallout 3 or Borderlands dlc which provided much more content at half the price. You said yourself that content should be brought back in at a low price. I agree.
I can see why you said the first part, but my argument on your last sentence from before was this: If you must cut content to make a sequel or second version, like Street Fighter IV and it's Super counterpart, make it a point to bring back some or all the old content at a lower price through DLC. I did not say R* cut the storylines out before GTA IV was released, which would have validated your point had I said so; they created them after the game was released, and sold them as episodes to GTA IV.
Since you're bringing the DLC of Fallout 3 and Borderlands, two of my favorite games, into this mix, I can say with certainty that your argument is flawed. The L&D and BoGT episodes were about 15 hours long each, longer than the length of many new games, and had the entire city to mess around in again in each game. Yet $20 was too high? I fail to see your reasoning on that, much less when you compare them to the other two games's DLC packs.
All nine pieces were worth the price of each when I picked them up over time, Broken Steel and General Knox being the two most valuable, but it was only those two which expanded end-game content, unless you count the Claptrap DLC level cap raise. And no, I do not consider The Pitt or PL as episodes like GTA IV's ones were. They are fun and worth the money I spent on them, but they needed Fallout 3 to work, unlike my version of the Episodes Pack for GTA IV.
I don?t believe all dlc is a con but you have to admit that there?s a huge difference between paying $10 for Zombie Island of Dr Ned and paying $10 for something like an online pass.
Because they're respectively single-player and online play products. You cannot compare the two that loosely. And, again, this is still a rumor.
And rave about XBL all you want I do think it was pretty unreasonable for them to raise the price of it in the middle of the same console cycle. It wasn?t necessary and it doesn?t seem to have led to any massive improvements or additions to the service. SO yes, that was just a money grab by them and a well positioned one because many people fell for it.
Once again, you're of the impression that we are being pressured into paying for things when that is not the case. No game, nor online service, nor DLC, nor expansion pack is a necessity which you must buy. They are luxury items in terms of products, and prices for them can be higher than necessities because of that.
And yes, I know Live Gold is the sole way you can game online with the 360, but in retrospect, I don't mind shelling out some cash for the service when I want to play online. The only way Sony has a leg up on Microsoft here is with the Plus service, but it doesn't improve anything related to connectivity or the service itself.
The economic subject I will point you towards in relation to all of this is called Elasticity of Demand, specifically the subtexts of Income EoD, and Price EoD. Under the former is a subtext detailing how income affects purchases of luxury products like Plus subs and games, and under the latter is a showcase of what factors affect the demand of a service/product, like DLC or games, when price changes.
One of those factors under PEoD is Brand Loyalty, which both companies have to some degree, but this is only one of seven factors in this definition. While it may be a part psychologically on why Microsoft felt to raise the price of Live, I still stand that it was because the service was starting to cost them money by how fast it was growing. Next, because they saw it as a service people would use for years, and lo and behold people do and have, they raised the price to cover external and internal costs of running Live.
Plus, lest we forget, the physical 1-Month Live card is gone. No more paying 15$ for one month. Now it's 20$ for three, $6.66 per month at most. You might see that as a bullying tactic, but as a Business/Economic student, I say the opposite. In fact, to save money, I recommend the 3 month over the 12 month since from my experience, even the most avid online gamers waste over half that time offline or not using the service at all.
And I love how what other consumers consider being savvy, most gamers consider paranoid, cheap, or spoiled. That level of defensiveness and blind faith in these corporations betrays the sad truth. This is why I see gamers as consumers that are easily bullied into handing over their lunch money for very little (or in some cases, nothing) in return.
The word savvy means having a practical understanding of something. In this case, I do not see that in your posts, nor in many of the others posting here, outside of those who said that if this is true, they're buying used because they don't play online to begin with.
On further personal observation, many people in this thread seem to hate MK with a passion, which I believe validates my own thoughts on why this online pass rumor for the game is almost a non issue at this point. A lot of posters don't care about the game, yet an unfounded rumor is enough to inspire people to get angry at something? I can't imagine what kind of outcry this would get from Halo, Street Fighter, or Call of Duty fans if that was true for them, but let's not open that worm can just yet.
If you wish to talk cheap/spoiled however, I will gladly let this outline help me make my case.
XBOX Live = 6.66 - 4.16 per month depending on cards/time bought - Allows online play with every Live enabled game with very good connectivity, while Free members have access to everything else along with Gold members - About 30+ million Live users, about half with Gold.
PSN = Free without Plus/5.99 - 4.16 per month with Plus - No server or connectivity improvements, but reduces costs of almost all online virtual products while subscribed - every member has access to all content outside Plus content - 69 million PSN accounts.
From those numbers, more than double the number of players are on PSN than Live, however I know Free/Gold users of Live have access to all the same content online aside from one: Online Play. If that's one of the biggest reasons why there are so many more PSN than Live users, then being spoiled/cheap is a factor because no matter what service you have on Live, you have access to nearly all the same content, whereas with Plus you have to pay for the perks in that service, which makes it a Membership service, and means it encourages you to spend more money.
Then again, everything these services offer and charge for are luxuries, which no one has to pay for but chooses to do so.
New here, the demo was impressive and fun, it's also fun to support developers rather than support people who rent/buy preowned games out of spite because the developer cares about you know... having a job to go to once the game's out.
Edit: Also in that link that was posted it said rumour so... you know speculation.
Sorry but none of that seemed to help your case: mostly you just tried to blindly contradict me or steer the conversation in a different direction. I understand the need to justify purchases to prove to yourself that you aren't being taken advantage of but the more you live in denial, the more you'll be ripped off. Not by MK (as you pointed out, you want to play it online anyway and it might not even have "pass") but these publishers, console makers, and retailers have come up with many ways to get your money without providing much in return.
However, I was amused by the part where you explained how anyone who bought the gta dlc had the "entire" [recycled] city to play on (like that's a bonus feature) along with 15 hours (for who?) of new missions.
And I get that MK might not have "Pass" but it is something that is in practice and has been used on other games so I am concerned.
Sorry but none of that seemed to help your case: mostly you just tried to blindly contradict me or steer the conversation in a different direction. I understand the need to justify purchases to prove to yourself that you aren't being taken advantage of but the more you live in denial, the more you'll be ripped off. Not by MK (as you pointed out, you want to play it online anyway and it might not even have "pass") but these publishers, console makers, and retailers have come up with many ways to get your money without providing much in return.
The debate does seem rather one sided when you choose not to detail your own responses to me, and cry that I blindly defend myself. Why not try to prove me wrong and defend your points instead of not properly quoting someone and trying to write everything off as blind loyalty?
I do have a practical understanding of things as my posts have shown, however given this and past replys of yours, to be frank, I think I've been arguing with a troll this whole time.
However, I was amused by the part where you explained how anyone who bought the gta dlc had the "entire" [recycled] city to play on (like that's a bonus feature) along with 15 hours (for who?) of new missions.
Unlike a number of people here, I take my time with DLC to enjoy myself. I don't powerplay or grind, and for $20, the entire city should be available to the buyer.
And I get that MK might not have "Pass" but it is something that is in practice and has been used on other games so I am concerned.
One last time: Unless this is revealed as truth, you have nothing to base your argument on this soon. Wait until it comes out, then act angry if you must. Still, I can't stop vitriol on topics like this even if I tried.
This is a fucking con. Five extra pound for online if I buy it without forking out £40-£50 for a single game? That's ridiculous. Alot of people might not have the money to buy it when it's just come out, only being able to get it later on, then pay five pounds extra. It's a rip-off. I'm not buying this game after all.
If someone has bought a game, they have also bought a spot in the online servers. By selling the game used, you are also selling on your spot in the servers. You don't get to play online in exchange for money, someone else gets to enjoy the game for a reduced price, the developer has been paid fully for one of its' online 'spots' (of which has now passed on).
However, I was amused by the part where you explained how anyone who bought the gta dlc had the "entire" [recycled] city to play on (like that's a bonus feature) along with 15 hours (for who?) of new missions.
Unlike a number of people here, I take my time with DLC to enjoy myself. I don't powerplay or grind, and for $20, the entire city should be available to the buyer.
Yes, My point is that for $20, they should've given us a whole 'nother island in addition to the original city for gta4. Borderlands and Fallout 3 gave us that for half the price.
I'm not quoting your walls of text because your posts are right above mine: it's not like this is a hot thread or anything. Also your arguments have been pretty lean on counterpoints. For example, Breaking down the cost and returns of PSN vs XBL doesn't change the fact they raised the price during the console cycle.
You do realize that they have used the "online pass" scheme for past games right? I don't like it as a practice regardless of their intentions to apply it to MK.
I understand your argument that from the perspective of the developers/publishers/retailers these schemes and added/hidden costs are justified and maybe some of them are, but almost all of them seem to be very unfair to the consumer.
...You do realize that they have used the "online pass" scheme for past games right? I don't like it as a practice regardless of their intentions to apply it to MK.
You must play a lot of sports games then, because from my recollection, that's where most of the passes have appeared...and pretty much all of these are EA games.
* Dead Space 2*
* EA Sports MMA
* FIFA 2011
* Madden NFL 11
* Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit
* NBA 11
* NCAA Football 11*
* NHL 11
* Skate 3
* Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11
* UFC 2010 Undisputed
* WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2011
I understand your argument that from the perspective of the developers/publishers/retailers these schemes and added/hidden costs are justified and maybe some of them are, but almost all of them seem to be very unfair to the consumer.
Because the consumer is buying a luxury item, not an essential. Extra Credits said this as well, that a game console/gaming PC is a luxury item to begin with, along with much of what you can play on it or buy for it.
Yea, to me that list is too long for such a crummy scheme.
I understand that gaming is a luxury but it seems to be transitioning from a common luxury to a high end luxury and that?s pretty unfair to the gamers out there with a limited income. I used to be one of those gamers and trust me, they will still find ways to play the games and the publishers will like those methods even less than the used game market.
Yea, to me that list is too long for such a crummy scheme.
I understand that gaming is a luxury but it seems to be transitioning from a common luxury to a high end luxury and that?s pretty unfair to the gamers out there with a limited income. I used to be one of those gamers and trust me, they will still find ways to play the games and the publishers will like those methods even less than the used game market.
That I find just sad, in every way. That if a game is too expensive, or you hate some part of it, pirate it. Even LordKat on TGWTG made such a claim on Duke Nukem Forever.
James of EC however, said it best: "..In the end, if we're still pirating the game to play it, it renders all of those arguments meaningless because the game is apparently still worth playing despite the flaws..."
Even Jim Sterling, Destructoid's Reviews Editor, had a few choice words on that mindset. [http://www.destructoid.com/and-you-wonder-why-developers-hate-pc-gamers--193957.phtml]
I'm really tired with all this online pass bullshit. EA already has me by the short hairs here, but now I have to deal with this for Batman? Am I really the only one who finds this wrong? Apparently I am. I wanted to buy Mortal Kombat, but fuck it. I'm not buying this. I'm not buying any game that seeks to fuck over people who buy used games. You want to punish Gamestop, go for it! But don't fuck over your fans.
P.S. Is Batman: Arkham City going to have multiplayer? What am I buying the online pass to access?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
