MetallicaRulez0 said:
Savagezion said:
Also, you can consider things like the Day 1 DLC of Mass Effect and MW3 Elite effectively an online pass for a new game. It's just under the name DLC instead of the term "online pass". Games have been doing this for a while now already. The spin is "its extra content" because it can't be proven otherwise. It's like trying to divide by zero, its a unprovable. I am not saying all DLC is that, but I merely mean there is plenty of DLC out there that isn't bonus, it's simply content extortion.
This part I actually agree with. Day 1 DLC is ridiculous. If it's ready before or on launch day, why was it not A) on the disc already, or B) patched in on launch day FOR FREE? Because the publishers want more of your money. There are rare exceptions with Day 1 DLC, but most of it is indeed content extortion.
Savagezion said:
Many can already deduce you will never take up arms with your fellow gamers as you have already cast your lot in with the publishers by believing every word out of their mouth thinking they care more about your passions than the money in your wallet.
I haven't cast my lot in with anyone. Especially not the publishers. I simply have no quarrels with online pass as it currently stands. If you buy the game new, you aren't subject to any additional fees. If you decide to be cheap and buy a game used, then you suffer the consequences of that decision. That's perfectly logical to me. You are paying someone else for the publisher's product, therefore the publisher needs to get something out of the deal. If you can subdue your indignant rage for a minute and think about it, maybe you'll agree.
I wouldn't call it indignant rage so much as mild irritation of consumers putting blinders on. I don't completely invalidate online passes but I do invalidate the "good" they claim to do for the industry. I think they do more harm than good. Online passes are merely a way for publishers/developers to dodge a financial liability. That is the the only "good" in it and that is good for them, not necessarily us. They argue it trickles down to us by protecting them, but it doesn't trickle down to us completely because once they get that financial security, they will push the envelope for more consumer responsibility to protect them. (Pay them more money for something else too.)
I recently read an article where someone in the industry, a developer somewhere, was going on about how "good" it is that companies are allowing us to pay $X to get old favorites on our current consoles. Like the original Sonic or Mario 3. Of course,
he sees it as a great idea. If I can figure out how to sell someone the same
bologna sandwich rolex over and over again, I would think its a
fucking fantastic idea. If I am the poor shlub having to constantly re-buy the damned thing, it sucks.
Online passes affect the future, as vague and cryptic as that sounds. Theatres HAVE to charge high prices on concessions because the MPAA takes like 80-90% of the revenue as of like the 1970's or 80's. The game industry is currently trying to do this to retailers so that they can force digital distribution or use hostile actions to legally extort more money from retailers which will no doubt hurt small time retailer way more than Gamestop's presence ever could. DvD outlets sell used DvDs and usually dabble in CDs too because they have to, not because they are trying to screw the industry but because someone thought "A store that sells just movies/CDs would be a cool place to shop". Gamestop is the same way. If you return a opened new DVD the studios still supports retailers credit. Game Publishers don't. If Gamestop is the a demon spawn, publishers are the devil. Gamestop is what it is because that is what it needed to become to be profitable in the current market. Online passes are a way for the industry to rook them again.
I don't know anyone who buys $55 used games unless they get one for free with the purchase effectively lowering the price. This is because it is a budget issue and $5-8 isn't going to make a dent in anyone's budget if you are planning to spend ~$50. I know a lot of people who buy used games from all kinds of different budgets too. I have never known any of them to walk in and pay $50 for 1 used game let alone $55. 1 used game averages about $30 tops but generally stays in the $15-20 range. A couple guys I know see spending $15 as "pricey" due to their budgets and those guys still manage 1-2 brand new launch day title purchases per year. People buying used games aren't out to destroy the industry, they are trying to keep playing on a budget that doesn't want them to. Considering these are mass produced and not a limited resource, meeting the demand in the market's budget is the smarter play instead of demanding the market meet the publisher's budget.
Obligatory "make better games and less shovelware/cash grab titles" statement.
In the long run, many of the games coming out today won't stand the test of time because of this. Retro gaming is actually being detoured nowadays. I can play Mario 2, Earthbound, KoF:Heroes, or any other game before this generation anytime I want for the rest of my life just as it was when it came out. The games of this generation will be dead within one or two console generations and be crippled versions of their former selves. If I find a copy of Joe & Mac 2 on SNES somewhere I am gonna buy it up. I hope no kid growing up playing Batman Arkham Asylum (who ends up breaking/selling it) on 360/PS3 wants to revisit it on the PS3 when he gets older because that isn't gonna happen. He is gonna get a crippled version if he finds a copy as it won't be in production anymore and the Catwoman access will be unable to be accessed anymore.
