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

[Kopikatsu]

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.

The majority of gamers don't buy games, so one, you're wrong.

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.

By 'agree with', I didn't mean to imply that they were for online passes. But like you said, it isn't enough to stop them from buying the games they want. Businesses are about profits, and online passes are apparently profitable. So by buying the game, they are accepting online passes.

It's like...if you don't vote, then technically you voted with the majority. If you buy a game with an online pass, you're voting for more online passes.

 

[Something Amyss]

This seems fair. Game servers aren't free, you know.

And the 360 is Peer to Peer.

 

[king_katchit]

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!

My god that looks like Bez and Ron Perlman had offspring.

 

[Something Amyss]

By 'agree with', I didn't mean to imply that they were for online passes. But like you said, it isn't enough to stop them from buying the games they want. Since businesses are about profits, and online passes are apparently profitable. So by buying the game, they are accepting online passes.

It's like...if you don't vote, then technically you voted with the majority. If you buy a game with an online pass, you're voting for more online passes.

The game companies were complaining about not getting enough off the online pass deal. Sorry, again, look at some Escapist News once in a while, maybe. Or gaming news in general. Online passes are, evidently, only a drop in the bucket.

But more to the point, you're backtracking. You said they don't agree with me, which is outright unfounded.

What you "meant" is radically different. and still belied by news you can find right here on the site where you're stating it.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

I meant that some time in the near future no one is going to know it has a co-op code, and I guarantee it wont be on the box

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.

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?

Then the fault lies with either the consumer or the distributor. A used copy is the distributors stock and profit and it's their job to inform customers of a used copies shortcomings.

Publishers distribute new copies with codes, they don't have to worry because anyone buying it new will have a code. A used copy is taken by a distributor who know full well that the second hand copy is potentially missing a code. It's also your job as a consumer to make sure you're informed on your purchase.

 

[Kopikatsu]

By 'agree with', I didn't mean to imply that they were for online passes. But like you said, it isn't enough to stop them from buying the games they want. Since businesses are about profits, and online passes are apparently profitable. So by buying the game, they are accepting online passes.

It's like...if you don't vote, then technically you voted with the majority. If you buy a game with an online pass, you're voting for more online passes.

The game companies were complaining about not getting enough off the online pass deal. Sorry, again, look at some Escapist News once in a while, maybe. Or gaming news in general. Online passes are, evidently, only a drop in the bucket.

But more to the point, you're backtracking. You said they don't agree with me, which is outright unfounded.

What you "meant" is radically different. and still belied by news you can find right here on the site where you're stating it.

Do you have links for those? Because I do keep up with the news on the Escapist, I don't ever recall an article about how game companies were complaining that online passes weren't doing the job.

Edit: I didn't say they didn't agree, I said that by buying the game anyway, they've clearly shown that it isn't enough to stop them from buying the game. So whether or not they agree with online passes is completely irrelevant.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

By 'agree with', I didn't mean to imply that they were for online passes. But like you said, it isn't enough to stop them from buying the games they want. Since businesses are about profits, and online passes are apparently profitable. So by buying the game, they are accepting online passes.

It's like...if you don't vote, then technically you voted with the majority. If you buy a game with an online pass, you're voting for more online passes.

The game companies were complaining about not getting enough off the online pass deal. Sorry, again, look at some Escapist News once in a while, maybe. Or gaming news in general. Online passes are, evidently, only a drop in the bucket.

But more to the point, you're backtracking. You said they don't agree with me, which is outright unfounded.

What you "meant" is radically different. and still belied by news you can find right here on the site where you're stating it.

Do you have links for those? Because I do keep up with the news on the Escapist, I don't ever recall an article about how game companies were complaining that online passes weren't doing the job.

Edit: I didn't say they didn't agree, I said that by buying the game anyway, they've clearly shown that it isn't enough to stop them from buying the game. So whether or not they agree with online passes is completely irrelevant.

I recall a bit back where EA mentioned that the online pass system made them about 12 million dollars. That may be what he's talking about. I dunno.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Who FUCKING! cares?

Either buy the game new or pay $10.

Man up people and stop acting like typing 25 characters is going to kill you.

Developers making money off used sales of their games is a GOOD THING!
Developers giving away free content to people who buy the game new is a GOOD THING!

The only down side is 2 minutes of typing.

So stop whining, I hope online pass is here to stay.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Developers making money off used sales of their games is a GOOD THING!

You do realize that the lion's share of this goes to the publisher, right? Not the developer.

And why should they make extra money off of something they already sold? First Sale Doctrine and all that.

 

[Something Amyss]

Then the fault lies with either the consumer or the distributor. A used copy is the distributors stock and profit and it's their job to inform customers of a used copies shortcomings.

Publishers distribute new copies with codes, they don't have to worry because anyone buying it new will have a code. A used copy is taken by a distributor who know full well that the second hand copy is potentially missing a code. It's also your job as a consumer to make sure you're informed on your purchase.

Wow, that is SUCH a cop-out.

"They're not keeping it a secret."

"Yes they are."

"Well then IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT!"

Goalpost shift, much?

 

[Lt. Vinciti]

Well that sucks....

Then I realized buying it used means I wont have to deal with the MILLIONS of terrible characters types that have spawned from the "demo" and their website


Heath Ledger Joker? Nope dont have $10

Hooker? Whore? Slut? Nope didnt have 800MP

Insert Character From Game Here? Nadda aint spending that cash on that!


I think Im getting a new copy for Christmas...so I might just keep the code...

 

[Something Amyss]

Do you have links for those? Because I do keep up with the news on the Escapist, I don't ever recall an article about how game companies were complaining that online passes weren't doing the job.

Edit: I didn't say they didn't agree, I said that by buying the game anyway, they've clearly shown that it isn't enough to stop them from buying the game. So whether or not they agree with online passes is completely irrelevant.

Search bar that hard to use?

I'm sorry, but you made a ton of unfounded claims, it's a little weird that you would ask me to back up mine after.

So I will direct you to the search bar. Unless you want to source your claims, then I will go use the search bar for you.

 

[Z of the Na'vi]

I'm failing to see an issue here.

 

[FernandoV]

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.

Right, but then in the future a guy sees this game selling used cheap and goes "Oh I heard this was good I'll get it!" and then he is smacked in the face with a hidden fee once he does get it

It's not THAT hidden.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Do you have links for those? Because I do keep up with the news on the Escapist, I don't ever recall an article about how game companies were complaining that online passes weren't doing the job.

Edit: I didn't say they didn't agree, I said that by buying the game anyway, they've clearly shown that it isn't enough to stop them from buying the game. So whether or not they agree with online passes is completely irrelevant.

Search bar that hard to use?

I'm sorry, but you made a ton of unfounded claims, it's a little weird that you would ask me to back up mine after.

So I will direct you to the search bar. Unless you want to source your claims, then I will go use the search bar for you.

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/09/eas-us15m-in-online-pass-revenue-isnt-a-failure/

EA made $10-15 million in pure profit from online passes in a year.

If that's 'failing' to you, then I have no idea what success is.

 

[Zorg111]

I am sorry but this is the one game where this should work, since the focus of the game is the single player story mode the multi-player should be seen as a bonus.

 

[kommando367]

I pre-ordered the game already anyway and even if I didn't, I don't play SR for the co-op modes.

Not a fan of online passes, but I don't really care this time.

 

[UrieHusky]

PS: Might want to revise that pic to blur out the code.

You know once it's been used it can't be used again right? =P it would have already been used ^_^

OT: This doesn't overly concern me to be honest since I'm getting this day 1
Worst case scenario is used sales rise in price by 10 bucks, best case used retailers drop their prices to compensate the extra 10 or whatever we have to pay

 

[MrGalactus]

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

Well, looks like that's the last I buy from them. But I could have told you they were doing this with some games last year.

Gamers today are self entitled.

Yeah, how dare gamers want the right to a second-hand market? It's not like it has a right to exist....

OH WAIT, IT TOTALLY DOES.

Maybe you should look up "entitled," because the way you're using it, it applies more to the companies who are arguing they should get bonus money for used titles. They're not entitled to that. Sorry.

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.

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.

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.

We should do that.

Someone get me a phone.

Don't give me credit for the idea, it's been talked about for a while. The biggest problem is convincing a publisher to lower the cost of a game (even though it has less content) given that getting their money back on a game is difficult. What they don't see is that this would probably create much more potential for profit. Imagine going online now and buying CoD4 multiplayer for a tenner. Thats $10 for the Dev and Publisher ONLY, and if you want the single player campaign then you can go down to Gamestop and buy it used for a fiver or whatever. That's how much it costs used as a whole package now, and the Dev/Pub STILL GETS MONEY!
SUCCESS FOR ALL!

 

[2733]

I rent most of my games so this sucks for me, but I also don't have live gold so I can't play multiplayer anyway.

publishers, look over here, I will buy games rather then renting when you stop charging the value of 6 decent diners per game.