Saints Row: The Third to require online pass for co-op.

[walrusaurus]

Oh so I'm not entitled to multiplayer on a game I've bought? Buying it used is a punishable offence, is it?

Seeing as multiplayer servers don't just create and maintain themselves, and when we buy games used the studio gets $0. Asking us to pay for our place on their servers isn't unreasonable at all.

The thing i got out of this article was that SR3 apparently has coop! which i was unaware of i'm even more excited about it than i was before.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I don't agree that charging extra for coop on second hand copies is the best idea, but I also don't agree that devs should get no money for their games.

they do get money for their games. They're not entitled to a double-dip into the second hand market.

The overwhelming majority of gamers apparently don't agree with you, because online passes have so far been very successful, which is why more and more games keep getting them.

That's not how it works. People have been abusing the "vote with your wallet" adage for a while now and it's getting kinda old. If someone wants a product they can buy it, just because they buy a game it doesn't mean they agree with these sorts of policies. All it means is that their urge to play the game outweighs their dislike of, in this case, online passes. That's different to agreeing with it.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

People, people. Okay, look, whether it bothers you personally or not, these kinds of practices are something to worry about. If we just let developers get away with this kind of thing, they're going to keep pushing and pushing and seeing what else they can get away with. Forums just like this one were having discussions just like this one when PC games started requiring CD keys so buying used became impossible there. Forums just like this one were having conversations just like this one when it was determined that people who buy games don't actually "own" the game, they just "own" the rights to play the game, which is total bullshit.

The point is, companies are going to keep seeing what they can get away with. And so far, the answer to that question is "murder if they wanted to", because everybody cares too much about their vices to stand up to bad business practices. You gotta put your foot down SOMEWHERE! Do you want a future where bargains don't exist? Where LOCAL splitscreen multiplayer requires all players to have bought the game? Where you have to enter CD keys to play a CONSOLE game? Where you have to register a separate account, AND your credit card information, for each and every console game you play?

Because that's our future. You can deny it all you want, but this is exactly what's going to happen if we don't stand up to this bullshit now. If you told a gamer in the 90's that some day, we'd have to pay extra money to unlock features in a game we already paid for, they'd laugh in your face and call you paranoid. If you told a gamer in the 90's that some day, games would be designed to withhold half the content and nickle-and-dime you for it in expansions or DLC, they'd laugh in your face and call you paranoid. And what are likely a lot of you doing right now? Laughing in my face and calling me paranoid. Yeah. "Oh."

Corporations do not have morals. They do not have ethics. They do not have souls. If human trafficking was legal, they'd sell children. Will Wright himself would sell his own mother. There are only two things that keep corporations behaving properly: Laws, and consumer backlash. That's it. And since none of these practices are illegal, it's up to us to create the backlash to prevent things from getting worse.

Thank you. You're one of the few gamers who actually understands this basic economic fact. I don't know of any other group of consumers this weak willed. Can you imagine the uproar if they started putting activation codes to get to the special features on new Blu-Rays? And that's assuming that online play is even equivalent to a "special feature." It's not, it's more like if every Blu-Ray came with two movies, and you had to pay a fee to activate the second one if you bought it used. It just wouldn't fly.

 

[Yopaz]

Oh no, I have to pay the developers money to get access to all their product.

Whatever shall I do.

Woe is me.

*insert more sarcasm here*

Hey, if you want to promote anti-consumer policies, go for it.

How is it anti-consumer exactly?

I will buy the game new. Therefore I get the code, and the devs get my money.

Gamers today are self entitled.

Oh so I'm not entitled to multiplayer on a game I've bought? Buying it used is a punishable offence, is it?

If you pay the full price you get the full game. It's not that complicated.

If you legally purchase the game, no matter what the price agreed upon, you get the full game. It's not that complicated.

And it's legal for the publisher to make online passes. Do you got a point there?

Yes, that people with large amounts of money can pay lawyers to either find or create a loophole that circumvents consumer rights. We should be outraged that they did this and trying to get a law passed that patches the hole, not going "thank you, sir, may I have another?"

Spoiler: this videoclip shows the reaction of the average gamer to the excesses of the industry

Only problem is, very, very few of them are even trying to get into the "fraternity," which in this metaphor is the industry, so sitting there and asking for more does absolutely nothing positive.

Edit: By the way, in case anyone has a lacking movie education and doesn't know what the clip is from, it's from National Lampoon's Animal House, not some creepy porno.

It's not a loophole at all. Please if you want to use the law to support your whining over the fact that they want money to cover server costs please for the love of god learn the law first.

Call it what you want; it goes completely against the spirit of the law, but follows the letter of the law. To me, that is the definition of a loophole. The biggest mistake consumers ever made was accepting the first EULA, because our rights have been on a downward slope ever since. They aren't licensing the games to us, but because they have a piece of paper that claims they are, they can get away with it. Thing is, those don't even fly in the courts of most countries; in the EU, they're explicitly invalid, and even in the US, their legal status is undecided. It's going to take a ruling by the Supreme Court to decide it, and it will probably be a 5-4 decision, but there's a good chance any EULA which actually made it that far would be struck down.

So World of Warcraft is the biggest lawbreaker of all the game industry by this logic? Not only do we have to pay for the game once. We have to register an account, then we have to pay to maintain their</b servers? It costs money to run servers, thus it's not unfair if we have to pay for it.

No, World of Warcraft is and always has been a service, not a product. The purchase price doesn't pay for the disc so much as the initial 15 days or whatever it is of service. After that, you pay $15 a month. Heck, most of the game isn't even on the disc; it's server side, not client side. With these other games, the online part is hosted by the user, using code that is on the disc -- and therefore part of the sale. Comparing WoW's business model to what's going on here is like comparing the fees on Cable or Satellite Radio to a physical movie or CD.

Edit: And yes, you read that right. The "server costs" are entirely footed by the players; the game company has jack squat to do with it. WoW uses a different system, where the servers are entirely hosted by Blizzard, and therefore have to be paid for on an ongoing basis. Even then, they way overcharge for it; each user incurs a cost on the order of pennies every month, but they each pay out $15. No wonder Blizzard is such a successful corporation...

Yeah, the difference is that you pay to use the servers one time, rather than once a month. Just because there's no content on the servers they cost money to maintain. We pay once, they pay until they decide the servers are dead and not worth keeping up anymore. So they are selling both a game and a service. The game can be played without the service so what are you complaining about?

Edit: even when you're hosting a server you connect through a network that connects you to those you are playing with. It might not be a massive cost for each player, but there is a cost involved. Let me add that you should learn how technology work while you're digging into the laws.

 

[hazabaza1]

Oh god, the melodrama in this thread...
If it bothers you that much guys just buy it when it's cheap.

 

[Keava]

This again? Another case of "gamers" who feel they deserve everything giving nothing back in return?

"Oh boo-hoo, I bought my game used, giving my money to some random guy rather than developers/publishers of this game because i really wanted to save those 5$ and now i can't play multiplayer/co-op. Why do even game developers want money for their products???"

Sorry console guys (and i say that because barley anyone really trades games on PC), but in this case You get no sympathy whatsoever. Want to be cheapskates - face the consequences, and don't bring up the crap about "games being too expensive". If You can't afford it now, buy it in few months when it will be discounted.
Online passes don't affect those that buy games "as intended".

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Oh so I'm not entitled to multiplayer on a game I've bought? Buying it used is a punishable offence, is it?

Seeing as multiplayer servers don't just create and maintain themselves, and when we buy games used the studio gets $0. Asking us to pay for our place on their servers isn't unreasonable at all.

The thing i got out of this article was that SR3 apparently has coop! which i was unaware of i'm even more excited about it than i was before.

Servers don't create and maintain themselves, no. But the publishers don't have to bother with it. In games with dedicated servers, the gamers host their own servers -- they usually pay for them with donations from server regulars. In the case of matchmaking, there's one central server that handles a tiny amount of data (it literally does nothing but keep track of player stats; things like how many times you've prestiged in a CoD game) and the individual players handle the rest through a peer to peer network. Even then, the bandwidth used by a game is tiny; WoW players cost Blizzard less than a dollar a month a piece, and they're ridiculously hard on the servers. For the average FPS, we're talking kilobytes of data in an average play session, maybe upgraded to megabytes if voice chat is being carried too. That costs next to nothing; the only reason the servers are as expensive as they are is because most groups just rent them from a third party. A lot of older games (with lower system requirements for the server) that still have dedicated servers are hosted on an old linux box in some guys garage, using his home internet connection. The whole "servers are expensive" deal is a lie to get consumers on the publisher's side; gamers, having a history of gullibility in this area, fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Edit: and to emphasisze, the servers for WoW are hosted by Blizzard. The servers for nearly all FPS's (Planetside and Quake Live being the only exceptions I can think of -- and surprise surprise, the former is on a subscription based model just like WoW, while the latter is free to the user, with ads and premium accounts (which get rid of the ads and let you host your own servers) are hosted by the users, who pay for everything.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Oh no, I have to pay the developers money to get access to all their product.

Whatever shall I do.

Woe is me.

*insert more sarcasm here*

Hey, if you want to promote anti-consumer policies, go for it.

How is it anti-consumer exactly?

I will buy the game new. Therefore I get the code, and the devs get my money.

Gamers today are self entitled.

Oh so I'm not entitled to multiplayer on a game I've bought? Buying it used is a punishable offence, is it?

If you pay the full price you get the full game. It's not that complicated.

If you legally purchase the game, no matter what the price agreed upon, you get the full game. It's not that complicated.

And it's legal for the publisher to make online passes. Do you got a point there?

Yes, that people with large amounts of money can pay lawyers to either find or create a loophole that circumvents consumer rights. We should be outraged that they did this and trying to get a law passed that patches the hole, not going "thank you, sir, may I have another?"

Spoiler: this videoclip shows the reaction of the average gamer to the excesses of the industry

Only problem is, very, very few of them are even trying to get into the "fraternity," which in this metaphor is the industry, so sitting there and asking for more does absolutely nothing positive.

Edit: By the way, in case anyone has a lacking movie education and doesn't know what the clip is from, it's from National Lampoon's Animal House, not some creepy porno.

It's not a loophole at all. Please if you want to use the law to support your whining over the fact that they want money to cover server costs please for the love of god learn the law first.

Call it what you want; it goes completely against the spirit of the law, but follows the letter of the law. To me, that is the definition of a loophole. The biggest mistake consumers ever made was accepting the first EULA, because our rights have been on a downward slope ever since. They aren't licensing the games to us, but because they have a piece of paper that claims they are, they can get away with it. Thing is, those don't even fly in the courts of most countries; in the EU, they're explicitly invalid, and even in the US, their legal status is undecided. It's going to take a ruling by the Supreme Court to decide it, and it will probably be a 5-4 decision, but there's a good chance any EULA which actually made it that far would be struck down.

So World of Warcraft is the biggest lawbreaker of all the game industry by this logic? Not only do we have to pay for the game once. We have to register an account, then we have to pay to maintain their</b servers? It costs money to run servers, thus it's not unfair if we have to pay for it.

No, World of Warcraft is and always has been a service, not a product. The purchase price doesn't pay for the disc so much as the initial 15 days or whatever it is of service. After that, you pay $15 a month. Heck, most of the game isn't even on the disc; it's server side, not client side. With these other games, the online part is hosted by the user, using code that is on the disc -- and therefore part of the sale. Comparing WoW's business model to what's going on here is like comparing the fees on Cable or Satellite Radio to a physical movie or CD.

Edit: And yes, you read that right. The "server costs" are entirely footed by the players; the game company has jack squat to do with it. WoW uses a different system, where the servers are entirely hosted by Blizzard, and therefore have to be paid for on an ongoing basis. Even then, they way overcharge for it; each user incurs a cost on the order of pennies every month, but they each pay out $15. No wonder Blizzard is such a successful corporation...

Yeah, the difference is that you pay to use the servers one time, rather than once a month. Just because there's no content on the servers they cost money to maintain. We pay once, they pay until they decide the servers are dead and not worth keeping up anymore. So they are selling both a game and a service. The game can be played without the service so what are you complaining about?

Edit: even when you're hosting a server you connect through a network that connects you to those you are playing with. It might not be a massive cost for each player, but there is a cost involved. Let me add that you should learn how technology work while you're digging into the laws.

Read my post above this one, bro. You're the one who is showing ignorance here, not me. I've been gaming online since 2002, and have been an active member of multiple server communities. I know how this crap works.

Edit: also, if you're not getting it, the "network" you connect to when the servers are user hosted (and almost all of them are; the few that aren't are just kind of seed servers that are only left up until the community takes off on its own, and matchmaking games don't even go that far) is called "the internet," and you pay your ISP for access to it, not the game company, who has absolutely nothing to do with it. The only cost they have is the stats server, which is such a negligible cost that they may as well be complaining that each new player isn't directly contributing to the cost of heating their offices (in fact, more so, because the server costs way, way less), and tacking a fee on for the purpose.

 

[Custard_Angel]

Modern game requires online pass to play co-op.

STOP.

THE.

PRESSES.

Seriously... how is this news? It's only the bloody industry standard these days.

 

[DustinOffAClassic]

That's not how it works. People have been abusing the "vote with your wallet" adage for a while now and it's getting kinda old. If someone wants a product they can buy it, just because they buy a game it doesn't mean they agree with these sorts of policies. All it means is that their urge to play the game outweighs their dislike of, in this case, online passes. That's different to agreeing with it.

Agreed. Most people pay taxes, knowing that half of it goes to ridiculous things that they wouldn't agree to. But people have this silly urge to fulfill their needs, like living freely outside of bars and indoors (taxes), be entertained (buy games, especially sequels to games that DIDN'T have this pass BS), etc.

 

[DustinOffAClassic]

Seeing as multiplayer servers don't just create and maintain themselves, and when we buy games used the studio gets $0. Asking us to pay for our place on their servers isn't unreasonable at all.

I already payed for my place with 60 freaking dollars. And I'll transfer those rights to whomever I want. They don't have to run servers forever, but they can't pretend like the original owner DIDN'T pay for that spot.

It isn't developer assurance, it's publisher double-dipping.

 

[Yopaz]

Oh no, I have to pay the developers money to get access to all their product.

Whatever shall I do.

Woe is me.

*insert more sarcasm here*

Hey, if you want to promote anti-consumer policies, go for it.

How is it anti-consumer exactly?

I will buy the game new. Therefore I get the code, and the devs get my money.

Gamers today are self entitled.

Oh so I'm not entitled to multiplayer on a game I've bought? Buying it used is a punishable offence, is it?

If you pay the full price you get the full game. It's not that complicated.

If you legally purchase the game, no matter what the price agreed upon, you get the full game. It's not that complicated.

And it's legal for the publisher to make online passes. Do you got a point there?

Yes, that people with large amounts of money can pay lawyers to either find or create a loophole that circumvents consumer rights. We should be outraged that they did this and trying to get a law passed that patches the hole, not going "thank you, sir, may I have another?"

Spoiler: this videoclip shows the reaction of the average gamer to the excesses of the industry

Only problem is, very, very few of them are even trying to get into the "fraternity," which in this metaphor is the industry, so sitting there and asking for more does absolutely nothing positive.

Edit: By the way, in case anyone has a lacking movie education and doesn't know what the clip is from, it's from National Lampoon's Animal House, not some creepy porno.

It's not a loophole at all. Please if you want to use the law to support your whining over the fact that they want money to cover server costs please for the love of god learn the law first.

Call it what you want; it goes completely against the spirit of the law, but follows the letter of the law. To me, that is the definition of a loophole. The biggest mistake consumers ever made was accepting the first EULA, because our rights have been on a downward slope ever since. They aren't licensing the games to us, but because they have a piece of paper that claims they are, they can get away with it. Thing is, those don't even fly in the courts of most countries; in the EU, they're explicitly invalid, and even in the US, their legal status is undecided. It's going to take a ruling by the Supreme Court to decide it, and it will probably be a 5-4 decision, but there's a good chance any EULA which actually made it that far would be struck down.

So World of Warcraft is the biggest lawbreaker of all the game industry by this logic? Not only do we have to pay for the game once. We have to register an account, then we have to pay to maintain their</b servers? It costs money to run servers, thus it's not unfair if we have to pay for it.

No, World of Warcraft is and always has been a service, not a product. The purchase price doesn't pay for the disc so much as the initial 15 days or whatever it is of service. After that, you pay $15 a month. Heck, most of the game isn't even on the disc; it's server side, not client side. With these other games, the online part is hosted by the user, using code that is on the disc -- and therefore part of the sale. Comparing WoW's business model to what's going on here is like comparing the fees on Cable or Satellite Radio to a physical movie or CD.

Edit: And yes, you read that right. The "server costs" are entirely footed by the players; the game company has jack squat to do with it. WoW uses a different system, where the servers are entirely hosted by Blizzard, and therefore have to be paid for on an ongoing basis. Even then, they way overcharge for it; each user incurs a cost on the order of pennies every month, but they each pay out $15. No wonder Blizzard is such a successful corporation...

Yeah, the difference is that you pay to use the servers one time, rather than once a month. Just because there's no content on the servers they cost money to maintain. We pay once, they pay until they decide the servers are dead and not worth keeping up anymore. So they are selling both a game and a service. The game can be played without the service so what are you complaining about?

Edit: even when you're hosting a server you connect through a network that connects you to those you are playing with. It might not be a massive cost for each player, but there is a cost involved. Let me add that you should learn how technology work while you're digging into the laws.

Read my post above this one, bro. You're the one who is showing ignorance here, not me. I've been gaming online since 2002, and have been an active member of multiple server communities. I know how this crap works.

Edit: also, if you're not getting it, the "network" you connect to when the servers are user hosted (and almost all of them are; the few that aren't are just kind of seed servers that are only left up until the community takes off on its own, and matchmaking games don't even go that far) is called "the internet," and you pay your ISP for access to it, not the game company, who has absolutely nothing to do with it. The only cost they have is the stats server, which is such a negligible cost that they may as well be complaining that each new player isn't directly contributing to the cost of heating their offices (in fact, more so, because the server costs way, way less), and tacking a fee on for the purpose.

Wow, you've been playing online since 2002? Then you must clearly know everything about everything. Now if you didn't get it, I was now using sarcasm.

Back in high school we used to play CS over LAN, but we had to dodge Steam because the school network blocked it. What we did was that we cracked the game so it could start without Steam and then we could play LAN. However when I got home and wanted to play online I could not connect to any servers without Steam, and no-one not on the same network could connect to my servers. Why is that? Because internet connection alone is not enough. You can't google your way into a server. Matchmaking works in a way to track down fitting servers based on your demands for you. You connect through a network and while the cost might be minimal, there is a small cost. It's like saying you should not be punished for shoplifting something cheap. The store is losing almost nothing on you doing it.

 

[vxicepickxv]

You connect through a network and while the cost might be minimal, there is a small cost. It's like saying you should not be punished for shoplifting something cheap. The store is losing almost nothing on you doing it.

Do me a favor and name ONE thing that you buy at a store that costs well under 1 billionth of a cent.

 

[Yopaz]

You connect through a network and while the cost might be minimal, there is a small cost. It's like saying you should not be punished for shoplifting something cheap. The store is losing almost nothing on you doing it.

Do me a favor and name ONE thing that you buy at a store that costs well under 1 billionth of a cent.

I'm afraid I can't name a single item that costs that little. Can you name anything at all that costs that little? If you're going to say that connecting thousands of people every day so they can play co-op please provide some proof with your obviously made up statistics.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Oh no, I have to pay the developers money to get access to all their product.

Whatever shall I do.

Woe is me.

*insert more sarcasm here*

Hey, if you want to promote anti-consumer policies, go for it.

How is it anti-consumer exactly?

I will buy the game new. Therefore I get the code, and the devs get my money.

Gamers today are self entitled.

Oh so I'm not entitled to multiplayer on a game I've bought? Buying it used is a punishable offence, is it?

If you pay the full price you get the full game. It's not that complicated.

If you legally purchase the game, no matter what the price agreed upon, you get the full game. It's not that complicated.

And it's legal for the publisher to make online passes. Do you got a point there?

Yes, that people with large amounts of money can pay lawyers to either find or create a loophole that circumvents consumer rights. We should be outraged that they did this and trying to get a law passed that patches the hole, not going "thank you, sir, may I have another?"

Spoiler: this videoclip shows the reaction of the average gamer to the excesses of the industry

Only problem is, very, very few of them are even trying to get into the "fraternity," which in this metaphor is the industry, so sitting there and asking for more does absolutely nothing positive.

Edit: By the way, in case anyone has a lacking movie education and doesn't know what the clip is from, it's from National Lampoon's Animal House, not some creepy porno.

It's not a loophole at all. Please if you want to use the law to support your whining over the fact that they want money to cover server costs please for the love of god learn the law first.

Call it what you want; it goes completely against the spirit of the law, but follows the letter of the law. To me, that is the definition of a loophole. The biggest mistake consumers ever made was accepting the first EULA, because our rights have been on a downward slope ever since. They aren't licensing the games to us, but because they have a piece of paper that claims they are, they can get away with it. Thing is, those don't even fly in the courts of most countries; in the EU, they're explicitly invalid, and even in the US, their legal status is undecided. It's going to take a ruling by the Supreme Court to decide it, and it will probably be a 5-4 decision, but there's a good chance any EULA which actually made it that far would be struck down.

So World of Warcraft is the biggest lawbreaker of all the game industry by this logic? Not only do we have to pay for the game once. We have to register an account, then we have to pay to maintain their</b servers? It costs money to run servers, thus it's not unfair if we have to pay for it.

No, World of Warcraft is and always has been a service, not a product. The purchase price doesn't pay for the disc so much as the initial 15 days or whatever it is of service. After that, you pay $15 a month. Heck, most of the game isn't even on the disc; it's server side, not client side. With these other games, the online part is hosted by the user, using code that is on the disc -- and therefore part of the sale. Comparing WoW's business model to what's going on here is like comparing the fees on Cable or Satellite Radio to a physical movie or CD.

Edit: And yes, you read that right. The "server costs" are entirely footed by the players; the game company has jack squat to do with it. WoW uses a different system, where the servers are entirely hosted by Blizzard, and therefore have to be paid for on an ongoing basis. Even then, they way overcharge for it; each user incurs a cost on the order of pennies every month, but they each pay out $15. No wonder Blizzard is such a successful corporation...

Yeah, the difference is that you pay to use the servers one time, rather than once a month. Just because there's no content on the servers they cost money to maintain. We pay once, they pay until they decide the servers are dead and not worth keeping up anymore. So they are selling both a game and a service. The game can be played without the service so what are you complaining about?

Edit: even when you're hosting a server you connect through a network that connects you to those you are playing with. It might not be a massive cost for each player, but there is a cost involved. Let me add that you should learn how technology work while you're digging into the laws.

Read my post above this one, bro. You're the one who is showing ignorance here, not me. I've been gaming online since 2002, and have been an active member of multiple server communities. I know how this crap works.

Edit: also, if you're not getting it, the "network" you connect to when the servers are user hosted (and almost all of them are; the few that aren't are just kind of seed servers that are only left up until the community takes off on its own, and matchmaking games don't even go that far) is called "the internet," and you pay your ISP for access to it, not the game company, who has absolutely nothing to do with it. The only cost they have is the stats server, which is such a negligible cost that they may as well be complaining that each new player isn't directly contributing to the cost of heating their offices (in fact, more so, because the server costs way, way less), and tacking a fee on for the purpose.

Wow, you've been playing online since 2002? Then you must clearly know everything about everything. Now if you didn't get it, I was now using sarcasm.

Back in high school we used to play CS over LAN, but we had to dodge Steam because the school network blocked it. What we did was that we cracked the game so it could start without Steam and then we could play LAN. However when I got home and wanted to play online I could not connect to any servers without Steam, and no-one not on the same network could connect to my servers. Why is that? Because internet connection alone is not enough. You can't google your way into a server. Matchmaking works in a way to track down fitting servers based on your demands for you. You connect through a network and while the cost might be minimal, there is a small cost. It's like saying you should not be punished for shoplifting something cheap. The store is losing almost nothing on you doing it.

The internet alone /is/ enough when dedicated servers are involved. The client connects to the server through the internet. Your cracked version of counterstrike was set up to only go through a local network (LAN: Local Area Network), and therefore couldn't connect to any internet based servers. Incidentally, Steam is only involved in Counterstrike as far as launching the game; some of the servers are connected to VAC, valve's anti-cheat service, but that connection is from the game server to the VAC server; the costs involved there, which are even lower than those involved with a game server, aren't directly related to anything done by the users -- and besides, Valve is the only game company that uses their own anti-cheat service. The rest of them either pay to use Punkbuster or pay valve to use VAC in their games -- which is how Valve pays for it. The bill is not footed by the users. Anyway, there are two checks you would have to get through to play a cracked copy of Counterstrike online. The first is getting around the connection to Steam, which you did. The second is connecting to a server which is not VAC secured, which do, in fact, exist. It's not the network's fault if you didn't know enough to do the second part. If you couldn't see the servers at all, it's because whoever cracked it didn't do a very good job, and they somehow disabled internet connections -- which would be silly, because Counterstrike has built in LAN support, so it's not like they would have needed to hack it in and replace the internet functionality with it.

As for matchmaking: it's a peer to peer network. It basically works like bit torrent. This is less like arguing that shoplifting costs Gamestop very little per person, and more like refusing to do business with a store that charges you a fee for enjoying the air conditioning on top of whatever it is you actually buy -- and that's assuming there's any costs involved for the company. The reality is that it's more like a store charging you for the air conditioning you have in your own house, or in the cases of dedicated servers that you play on but don't personally own, it's like going on a beer run for a party at a friend's place, and having them tack on a fee for using your friend's refrigerator to store the beer, even though they have nothing to do with that particular fridge.

And yeah, I've been playing online since 2002. That in itself isn't enough to show that I know what I'm doing, but the fact stated in the same sentence which claims says I've been an active member of multiple server communities (read: the people who use and, for a small percentage of them, pay for the servers) should show that I have some inkling of where the costs go. The fact that you apparently didn't understand what I meant by that shows that it's not me who is lacking information here.

 

[Keava]

Seeing as multiplayer servers don't just create and maintain themselves, and when we buy games used the studio gets $0. Asking us to pay for our place on their servers isn't unreasonable at all.

I already payed for my place with 60 freaking dollars. And I'll transfer those rights to whomever I want. They don't have to run servers forever, but they can't pretend like the original owner DIDN'T pay for that spot.

It isn't developer assurance, it's publisher double-dipping.

Yes. You can transfer the rights to the CD, box, manual and whatever other crap You find inside. The license is non transferable according to EULAs of some companies. Just like Your Xbox Live/PSN account, which is a service - funny enough ability to play the game is a service as well.

THE SOFTWARE IS LICENSED, NOT SOLD, TO YOU FOR USE ONLY UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT, DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE SOFTWARE AND DELETE ALL COPIES IN YOUR POSSESSION.

Like it or not, as a gamer You don't really own much except of some plastic that the game is stored on. All the digital data still belong to the developers and, in theory, if they feel You looked at them funny they can revoke Your license.

 

[guitarhero666]

Oh well, I'll buy it used and play it by myself. And then get it cheap on a Steam sale to play co-op.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Seeing as multiplayer servers don't just create and maintain themselves, and when we buy games used the studio gets $0. Asking us to pay for our place on their servers isn't unreasonable at all.

I already payed for my place with 60 freaking dollars. And I'll transfer those rights to whomever I want. They don't have to run servers forever, but they can't pretend like the original owner DIDN'T pay for that spot.

It isn't developer assurance, it's publisher double-dipping.

Yes. You can transfer the rights to the CD, box, manual and whatever other crap You find inside. The license is non transferable according to EULAs of some companies. Just like Your Xbox Live/PSN account, which is a service - funny enough ability to play the game is a service as well.

THE SOFTWARE IS LICENSED, NOT SOLD, TO YOU FOR USE ONLY UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT, DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE SOFTWARE AND DELETE ALL COPIES IN YOUR POSSESSION.

Like it or not, as a gamer You don't really own much except of some plastic that the game is stored on. All the digital data still belong to the developers and, in theory, if they feel You looked at them funny they can revoke Your license.

The EULA is a bit of legal mumbo jumbo which is absolutely non-binding under EU law, and questionably valid under US law (it depends on exactly how you acknowledge your agreement to it, and on how you acquire the software in the first place. So for example, a game bought through Steam has an ironclad EULA under both sets of law, while one for a Steamworks game bought in a brick and mortar store is questionable under US law, and unenforceable under EU law; in the US, the lower courts have been going back and forth on the matter for decades, while the Supreme Court has yet to hear a case which touches on it.) Basically, there is such a thing as a unconscionable contract. If I were to have you sign a contract which says, for example, that I get to kill you if you disagree with me, whether you signed it properly or not, it would be unenforceable. While the EULAs aren't quite as ridiculous as that, they are right on the border of being legally unconscionable, and therefore not worth the paper they're printed on. They're there more to scare the consumer into compliance than to do anything in the courts, anyway; if a case actually gets to court involving the EULA, the EULA has already failed to serve a good chunk of its purpose.

 

[Keava]

The EULA is a bit of legal mumbo jumbo which is absolutely non-binding under EU law, and questionably valid under US law (it depends on exactly how you acknowledge your agreement to it, and on how you acquire the software in the first place. So for example, a game bought through Steam has an ironclad EULA under both sets of law, while one for a Steamworks game bought in a brick and mortar store is questionable under US law, and unenforceable under EU law; in the US, the lower courts have been going back and forth on the matter for decades, while the Supreme Court has yet to hear a case which touches on it.) Basically, there is such a thing as a unconscionable contract. If I were to have you sign a contract which says, for example, that I get to kill you if you disagree with me, whether you signed it properly or not, it would be unenforceable. While the EULAs aren't quite as ridiculous as that, they are right on the border of being legally unconscionable, and therefore not worth the paper they're printed on. They're there more to scare the consumer into compliance than to do anything in the courts, anyway; if a case actually gets to court involving the EULA, the EULA has already failed to serve a good chunk of its purpose.

I agree, and i never said EULA was the best thing in the world, but currently it is what does let publishers do all sorts of stuff. Thing is, no matter how messed up and legally questionable the whole TOS/EULA is, it's the thing they have and we do not.

Maybe, just maybe, if all those people who whine on forums about how they can't get multiplayer on second-hand games would gather up and actually try to force some law changes it would do any good, but all that crying about online passes is just absurd.

More to the point however, with how whole cloud computing is developing, the problem will solve itself in a decade or so, depending on internet access improvements across the globe. There will be no game trading when everything will simply be streamed and all You will buy will be access code to the game, no data on user side at all.