They did when the game sold for the first time. It's not like used copies spring from nothing, you know.Daystar Clarion said:
Saints Row: The Third to require online pass for co-op.
- Thread starter MrGalactus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
........why...why? THQ I thought you were doing so well with your Saints Row promotions, and then you go and pull this off. smh
...Not that I was planning on doing multiplayer here but what about LAN? Dammit, I was really looking forward to this one and still am. I'll probably still get it though too, especially since I decided against Arkham City for their bait-n-switch with Catwoman. Multiplayer was never a big thing with me anyway, especially for Saint's Row but still...Here's to hoping LAN will be an option, especially since split-screen never was one.
Sometimes they do.CM156 said:
I swear I saw a copy of Skyrim appear right before my eyes.
[sub]Then I woke up...[/sub]
Ok, I gotta be honest. That was pretty funny.Daystar Clarion said:
Ah well. As I said, this was never really a game I wanted. Still a bit saddening. I could understand this if there was a concern about the game selling well. But for an established IP like this?
Right, I'd agree with that, but consumerism is supposed to work like this: I make best product that people want, I get most money, not I make product that people want, then they have to pay extra because the profit didn't go entirely to me, so now we charge them to have the product they actually wanted.Daystar Clarion said:
If Publishers want my money, then they'll make two separate products, Online multiplayer, and On-Disk single player. Charge total of $60 both, then the game is cheaper new, and they will always get their money for someone who wants MP whether it's bought new or used, and if someone doesn't want SP at all, then they will still get paid.
That sounds like a better idea to me.THEJORRRG said:
We should do that.
Someone get me a phone.
If you buy it new, then you get multiplayer at no additional cost. See how this works?THEJORRRG said:
It'll still exist. Not every game has multiplayer, not everyone is interested in multiplayer, and no game's multiplayer servers stay up forever. If you're buying a 'cheap' game, chances are that you couldn't play the multiplayer anyway! Online pass or no.Zachary Amaranth said:
Eh, not surprised.
Most Triple A games I play now-a-days have an online code.
I can't wait until companies lock out the single player campaigns just to make a quick buck! That will be a joyous occasion!
Most Triple A games I play now-a-days have an online code.
I can't wait until companies lock out the single player campaigns just to make a quick buck! That will be a joyous occasion!
they do get money for their games. They're not entitled to a double-dip into the second hand market.Daystar Clarion said:
And now you have more of a reason to buy new. Which is the main point of online passes, they want you to buy new. The other part of it is recouping lost revenue from used sales, but everyone knows that part already.TK421 said:
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.Zachary Amaranth said:
Didn't Activision just do that with the new Spyro game? Not only did they make the game 2 times its own value, they also butchered what was once an enjoyable and nostalgic series.neonsword13-ops said:Eh, not surprised.
Most Triple A games I play now-a-days have an online code.
I can't wait until companies lock out the single player campaigns just to make a quick buck! That will be a joyous occasion!
OT: This is somewhat disappointing, I was gonna get this game when it was cheap seeing as it's practically half a game anyway, instead of spending time developing cool ideas they simply throw as many as they can in one game and end up with like 100 gimmicks. "OMGAWD I PUNCHED THAT GUY IN THE CROTCH LOLOL", yeah.. shit gets old quick. I'll pass.
I'm buying it new, no problems.
Not if developers are selling it seperately...THEJORRRG said:
Not really a hidden fee, it's not like THQ have gone out of their way to keep this a secret.Furioso said:
The majority of gamers don't buy games, so one, you're wrong.Kopikatsu said:
Two, the success isn't as much as you hype it as, according to reports posted here on the Escapist.
Third, the fact that the "overwhelming majority" of gamers will (or rather, would, were it true) use online passes does not mean that they believe otherwise.
Half the people who call for boycotts are buying the games anyway, clearly indicating that even people who object are doing it.
Poor self control does not equal an agreement that the game companies are entitled. Sorry. Flawed logic. Based on a veritable house of cards, no less.
This seems fair. Game servers aren't free, you know. Don't companies have a right to ensure that someone who hasn't paid them for the game isn't wasting their money? It'd be an outrage if second owners were locked out from a game's content completely, but as it stands we're just talking about the multiplayer here.
This is an advertised major feature of the game that does not mention an online pass anywhere. This if the first I've heard of it besides one Giant Bomb article with a rumour, and IIRC THQ actually said it was incorrect.Azure-Supernova said:
Further, THQ was hiding it last year. Smackdown vs Raw 2011 (I think that was the year from last year's release) said nothing about it anywhere on the box, and I was told that other THQ games were the same. Why would you think, despite not mentioning it yet, they WEREN'T hiding it?