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

[The Lunatic]

Eh, it's rather disappointing, but, doesn't make a lick of difference to us PC folk.

 

[Radelaide]

There are way to many entitled little shits on this thread for me to say anything other than:

Oh. My. God. They're charging you for a game! How ever shall you recover from the experience of actually paying for something in a world where you get everything for nothing!

Grow up, there are vastly more important things to be worried about.

You are aware of the irony of that statement, right?

I mean, if it's something not worth getting worked up over, then us getting worked up over it is something you shouldn't get worked up over. If that makes any sense. I kinda find that funny.

EDIT: Also saying there are "More important" things to worry about can apply to pretty much anything. Can I hold you to that next time you lodge a legitimate complaint?

Currently, I live in a city getting pissed off about the council cutting down <a href=http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/10/13/3338901.htm>Fig Trees. My current complaint is how I'm going to afford the repayments on my house. Legit enough?

OT: I'm not getting worked up (not over this anyway), I'm stating a simple fact. Why are people getting upset over online passes? I've stated in another thread that if you buy the game new, you don't have to pay. If you buy the game used, you buy the online pass (for lets say $10) and you're generally getting the game cheaper for the new price anyway. Everyone wins.

I deem that a legit complaint. But some I know would berate you because you have a house, and there are homeless people. Again, saying "there are bigger things" can be applied to all but one issue. So don't go there. Trust me, m'lady

And using all caps in another font conveys the sentiment of getting "worked up", as it were.

I wasn't. It's how the h2 script makes the font look. It was for emphasis.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

There are way to many entitled little shits on this thread for me to say anything other than:

Oh. My. God. They're charging you for a game! How ever shall you recover from the experience of actually paying for something in a world where you get everything for nothing!

Grow up, there are vastly more important things to be worried about.

You are aware of the irony of that statement, right?

I mean, if it's something not worth getting worked up over, then us getting worked up over it is something you shouldn't get worked up over. If that makes any sense. I kinda find that funny.

EDIT: Also saying there are "More important" things to worry about can apply to pretty much anything. Can I hold you to that next time you lodge a legitimate complaint?

Currently, I live in a city getting pissed off about the council cutting down <a href=http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/10/13/3338901.htm>Fig Trees. My current complaint is how I'm going to afford the repayments on my house. Legit enough?

OT: I'm not getting worked up (not over this anyway), I'm stating a simple fact. Why are people getting upset over online passes? I've stated in another thread that if you buy the game new, you don't have to pay. If you buy the game used, you buy the online pass (for lets say $10) and you're generally getting the game cheaper for the new price anyway. Everyone wins.

I deem that a legit complaint. But some I know would berate you because you have a house, and there are homeless people. Again, saying "there are bigger things" can be applied to all but one issue. So don't go there. Trust me, m'lady

And using all caps in another font conveys the sentiment of getting "worked up", as it were.

I wasn't. It's how the h2 script makes the font look. It was for emphasis.

I'm aware of that. However, you also used two exclamation points as well. Tone is hard to translate across the internet.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Here's the problem with that: They still do. Look at the big publishers (Who, by the way, are the ones doing this). The are still raking in millions of dollars every year. It's not as if they're starving. If a smaller studio did this because they were unsure if the game would sell well, I could understand that. But these guys? Not so much. THQ's net income was $136 million last year.

So a company has to be starving if it wants to make more money? The fact is, a lot of sales are lost through used games. Companies are based around getting money. THQ doesn't care about us and they shouldn't. They care about money. So why should they just sit there and watch people buy their games from middlemen while they see none of the money? The pass is kind of lame, but if I don't want to spend like $10 on a stupid online pass to use a feature that I don't really care about, I'll just buy the game new. Everyone is happy. And for the companies that don't, that's great for them. I'm just not going to act like it's the end of the world when a developer wants a little bit more cash that they totally deserve. If you want to boycott THQ for stupid reasons, go right ahead. You'll just miss out on playing Saints Row 3.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Here's the problem with that: They still do. Look at the big publishers (Who, by the way, are the ones doing this). The are still raking in millions of dollars every year. It's not as if they're starving. If a smaller studio did this because they were unsure if the game would sell well, I could understand that. But these guys? Not so much. THQ's net income was $136 million last year.

So a company has to be starving if it wants to make more money? The fact is, a lot of sales are lost through used games. Companies are based around getting money. THQ doesn't care about us and they shouldn't. They care about money. So why should they just sit there and watch people buy their games from middlemen while they see none of the money? The pass is kind of lame, but if I don't want to spend like $10 on a stupid online pass to use a feature that I don't really care about, I'll just buy the game new. Everyone is happy. And for the companies that don't, that's great for them. I'm just not going to act like it's the end of the world when a developer wants a little bit more cash that they totally deserve. If you want to boycott THQ for stupid reasons, go right ahead. You'll just miss out on playing Saints Row 3.

I'm saying that the sentiment of "Oh, those poor, poor devs" doesn't ring as true. I'm simply stating that it's hard to feel pity towards them.

Secondly, they cannot "lose" a sale to used games. To lose something, you have to have a legal right to it in the first place. Which they do not. So please, find a better phrase. They lost "potential" sales, which is a very different thing.

Thirdly, I buy most all my games brand new. And I had no desire to even play this game, as it's not a genre that I enjoy much. So I'm not "losing out" on much.

 

[Black_Phoenix]

I'm gonna buy it new anyway, but online passes are disgusting. Once I buy your game for the first time, that should be the only time I spend money on it (other than DLC). It's because of online passes that I most likely will never buy Battlefield 3. My friend brought it over and I tried to play the multiplayer on my gamertag and I needed a pass to do so. It isn't their product anymore, that copy belongs to my friend and he can do with it what he wishes. I am aware that I could simply have played using his gamertag, but at that point I just didn't give a shit. If they're gonna be greedy fucks about it, I don't want anything to do with their game. If the company isn't making enough money, which they almost certainly would granted they don't make a shitty game, then they should just shut down the company. I don't give a fuck if the CEO isn't making enough millions, once I buy it, it's mine.

 

[silenticecream]

I'm gonna buy it new anyway, but online passes are disgusting. Once I buy your game for the first time, that should be the only time I spend money on it (other than DLC). It's because of online passes that I most likely will never buy Battlefield 3. My friend brought it over and I tried to play the multiplayer on my gamertag and I needed a pass to do so. It isn't their product anymore, that copy belongs to my friend and he can do with it what he wishes. I am aware that I could simply have played using his gamertag, but at that point I just didn't give a shit. If they're gonna be greedy fucks about it, I don't want anything to do with their game. If the company isn't making enough money, which they almost certainly would granted they don't make a shitty game, then they should just shut down the company. I don't give a fuck if the CEO isn't making enough millions, once I buy it, it's mine.

I getya, but this strategy is effectively tilting the balance between buying new and second hand. I DO tend to trade in whatever one player game that I have finished (xbox 360), and this provides an extra incentive to get a new copy of whatever new game has been released. Believe me, I sympathise, but peeps like me sometimes need the stick, as well as the carrot. Really, this doesn;t bother me, and merely compels me to reward a developer who has produced a sweet game. Similarly, I ensure that I buy the majority of my books full price. A little bit of cost-saving is great and all, but I personally feel that games that I am particularly attracted to deserve to be bought new. Again, I get where you are coming from, I'm just articulating a slightly different point of view D.

 

[Pat728]

I only got into saints row because of used games. I bought saints row 2 used and that was what got me and my friend into the series and is why we both have the third preordered. I know I never would have bought 2 if it had an online pass.

 

[Rednog]

You know what, I really don't care about the plight of console gamers anymore.
PC players had to deal with this crap years ago when steam launched and the used game market for the PC is dead.
Yes there are good points on both sides of the used game argument, but guess what eventually console games are going to follow down the path that PC gaming has already walked down.
Especially since harddrives are becoming bigger and bigger. Hell I'm still surprised game companies aren't making the leap and forcing people to just enter cd-keys and locking the game to a single player account.
Also, yes the used game market has a right to exist just like any other used market, but you have to realize why developers and publishers aren't huge fans of it. The market of used games is extremely unique. As apposed to other good like cars, books, etc those good undergo wear and tear that comes with use and age and this inherently lowers the value of said object quite rapidly. Those does not occur with games, a copy that is 20 years old works no different than a brand new copy. Hell you might say well this is the same case with movie dvds why aren't movie companies complaining? This is because they make a crap load of money on the theaters, and the whole DVD for consumers is really just icing on their cake.
Also realize that most companies really aren't complaining about you buying a used game when they are no longer printing it. They are concerned about the market of places like gamestop taking a fairly recent game and essentially charging $5 less for it than a new copy. As a consumer, from a financial standpoint, it just makes sense that you buy the used copy that is $5 less, because there is no actually difference between a used copy and a new copy.

This is sort of why I support the whole online pass thing, it is adding an inherent devaluation of the game that does not exist naturally for games because of the way the medium works. Also, why are people hating on the publisher/developers for doing this? Why not complain to used retailers and say hey why don't you lower the prices of your used games to reflect the fact that I have to go online and buy a used code in order to make my copy equivalent to a new game? Seriously even with the whole online pass thing, why are used game stores still charging $5 less, shouldn't their prices reflect the devalued nature of the game? No, because guess what the used retailers really don't care, they are just shafting you as much or even more than the dev/publisher.
Hell most used retailers would never devalue games if they pretty much weren't forced to by publishers, popular games would be constantly held high if it weren't things like Game of the Year, or Classics, or w/e other name that gets slapped on new copies and sold for like $19-29. Hell watch a new game now and watch its price drops, you'll notice that most used copies will stay very high and only really drop when publishers roll out cheaper new versions of the game.

Also the argument that devs/publishers should just add more to games to make people want to keep their game, I'm sorry but that kind of argument infuriates me to no end.
I worked in a gamestop for close to two years, no matter what game it is, no matter how good a majority of the population loves the game, people will trade it in en mass once they are done with it. And devs just end up being forced to slap on some bullshit multiplayer in order to add some longevity in hopes of getting people to keep their games. And this takes time/money/people/resources from the main game; and this my friends is a huge shame.

 

[direkiller]

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.

they already have money from when the game was bought new

if i buy the game new and keep it forever
but my buddy buys new sells it back and the next guy keeps it forever the dev still makes the same amount of money

Second hand market is beneficial to them weather they see it or not. You can look to the PC for a place that's devoid of a 2nd hand market but somehow still manages to sell less copys then the consoles that do have a second hand market(even if you take into account pirated copys as a sale its still lower).

 

[Lunar Templar]

THQ just joined Activision and EA on the "don't buy from" list.

i have but a single question for you.

how would this effect me beating some one to death with a giant purple dildo, in a mumu, matching sun hat and crocs?

color me crazy but mutli-player is pointless in a game like this. its not a game like CoD or BF where its the sole reason to buy the bloody thing.

so yeah, i'm a say it, this is one instance where the 'online pass' idea is extremely misplaced and wouldn't be surprised to hear how the game sells well but the online pass usage is bewilderingly small

 

[Mikeyfell]

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.

I know where the lion's share of the money goes, a little money to the devs is better than nothing.

And they should make money off used sales to stay in business.

You know for every person who says that publishers playing favorite to the customers who they actually make money off of is "Anti-consumer"

I can say that everyone who bitches and bitches about producers who want to make money is Communism*Implied scary voice

They're just doing this to encourage new game sales, they could have just as easily kept the content under their hat for a month or 2 and charged everybody full price for it, but they didn't. They gave it away for free out of the goodness of their black moneygrubbing hearts to anyone who actually payed for the fucking game. So stop whining and buy a new copy of Saint's Row 3.

 

[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.

I know where the lion's share of the money goes, a little money to the devs is better than nothing.

And they should make money off used sales to stay in business.

You know for every person who says that publishers playing favorite to the customers who they actually make money off of is "Anti-consumer"

I can say that everyone who bitches and bitches about producers who want to make money is Communism*Implied scary voice

They're just doing this to encourage new game sales, they could have just as easily kept the content under their hat for a month or 2 and charged everybody full price for it, but they didn't. They gave it away for free out of the goodness of their black moneygrubbing hearts to anyone who actually payed for the fucking game. So stop whining and buy a new copy of Saint's Row 3.

You're sentence implies that people are communism. That's funny.

Look at the First Sale Doctrine. Then come back to me.

...

Go ahead. I'll wait.

 

[Laxman9292]

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.

They did when the game sold for the first time. It's not like used copies spring from nothing, you know.

Sometimes they do.

I swear I saw a copy of Skyrim appear right before my eyes.

[sub]Then I woke up...[/sub]

Exactly, dreams are the only place a used copy of Skyrim will exist haha. But I firmly believe that devs deserve at least a lil somethin somethin from used game sales. However I don't think this is the best way to do it. I really like Obsidian's policy of make a game so good or with so much replay value that it doesn't go back to Gamestop. I already preordered this so it really doesn't bug me. I buy all the games I'm interested in new typically, only buying used for games that I don't really care about. I like Saints Row and I want them to keep making them so I'd rather see them get my money than Gamestop take it all.

 

[Kopikatsu]

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.

I know where the lion's share of the money goes, a little money to the devs is better than nothing.

And they should make money off used sales to stay in business.

You know for every person who says that publishers playing favorite to the customers who they actually make money off of is "Anti-consumer"

I can say that everyone who bitches and bitches about producers who want to make money is Communism*Implied scary voice

They're just doing this to encourage new game sales, they could have just as easily kept the content under their hat for a month or 2 and charged everybody full price for it, but they didn't. They gave it away for free out of the goodness of their black moneygrubbing hearts to anyone who actually payed for the fucking game. So stop whining and buy a new copy of Saint's Row 3.

You're sentence implies that people are communism. That's funny.

Look at the First Sale Doctrine. Then come back to me.

...

Go ahead. I'll wait.

The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell, lend or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy ends once ownership of that copy has passed to someone else, as long as the copy itself is not an infringing copy. This doctrine is also referred to as the "right of first sale," "first sale rule," or "exhaustion rule."

So...I don't see the problem. You can sell the disk and the content on said disk without permission from the publisher (Falls under First Sale Doctrine). However, multiplayer is a additional SERVICE which doesn't deal with who owns the physical disk or the content on said disk, but who is using their servers to play. Which is a completely separate issue from what the First Sale Doctrine deals with.

 

[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.

I know where the lion's share of the money goes, a little money to the devs is better than nothing.

And they should make money off used sales to stay in business.

You know for every person who says that publishers playing favorite to the customers who they actually make money off of is "Anti-consumer"

I can say that everyone who bitches and bitches about producers who want to make money is Communism*Implied scary voice

They're just doing this to encourage new game sales, they could have just as easily kept the content under their hat for a month or 2 and charged everybody full price for it, but they didn't. They gave it away for free out of the goodness of their black moneygrubbing hearts to anyone who actually payed for the fucking game. So stop whining and buy a new copy of Saint's Row 3.

You're sentence implies that people are communism. That's funny.

Look at the First Sale Doctrine. Then come back to me.

...

Go ahead. I'll wait.

The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell, lend or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy ends once ownership of that copy has passed to someone else, as long as the copy itself is not an infringing copy. This doctrine is also referred to as the "right of first sale," "first sale rule," or "exhaustion rule."

So...I don't see the problem. You can sell the disk and the content on said disk without permission from the publisher (Falls under First Sale Doctrine). However, multiplayer is a additional SERVICE which doesn't deal with who owns the physical disk, but who is using their servers to play. Which is a completely separate issue from what the First Sale Doctrine is about.

He was saying that devs should get money from the second hand sale of their games. Not just under multiplayer. That they are somehow entitled to break this rule. That is what I was refuting.

 

[CopperBoom]

I guess I will only be playing with the non-biker one percenters.
Sorry poor people, maybe you should make your own games.
I have to go literally burn money.

 

[Kopikatsu]

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.

I know where the lion's share of the money goes, a little money to the devs is better than nothing.

And they should make money off used sales to stay in business.

You know for every person who says that publishers playing favorite to the customers who they actually make money off of is "Anti-consumer"

I can say that everyone who bitches and bitches about producers who want to make money is Communism*Implied scary voice

They're just doing this to encourage new game sales, they could have just as easily kept the content under their hat for a month or 2 and charged everybody full price for it, but they didn't. They gave it away for free out of the goodness of their black moneygrubbing hearts to anyone who actually payed for the fucking game. So stop whining and buy a new copy of Saint's Row 3.

You're sentence implies that people are communism. That's funny.

Look at the First Sale Doctrine. Then come back to me.

...

Go ahead. I'll wait.

The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell, lend or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy ends once ownership of that copy has passed to someone else, as long as the copy itself is not an infringing copy. This doctrine is also referred to as the "right of first sale," "first sale rule," or "exhaustion rule."

So...I don't see the problem. You can sell the disk and the content on said disk without permission from the publisher (Falls under First Sale Doctrine). However, multiplayer is a additional SERVICE which doesn't deal with who owns the physical disk, but who is using their servers to play. Which is a completely separate issue from what the First Sale Doctrine is about.

He was saying that devs should get money from the second hand sale of their games. Not just under multiplayer. That they are somehow entitled to break this rule. That is what I was refuting.

I assumed he was referring to Project Ten Dollar and other such things when he said they should make money off used game sales. I could be wrong, though.

 

[Laxman9292]

I'm gonna buy it new anyway, but online passes are disgusting. Once I buy your game for the first time, that should be the only time I spend money on it (other than DLC). It's because of online passes that I most likely will never buy Battlefield 3. My friend brought it over and I tried to play the multiplayer on my gamertag and I needed a pass to do so. It isn't their product anymore, that copy belongs to my friend and he can do with it what he wishes. I am aware that I could simply have played using his gamertag, but at that point I just didn't give a shit. If they're gonna be greedy fucks about it, I don't want anything to do with their game. If the company isn't making enough money, which they almost certainly would granted they don't make a shitty game, then they should just shut down the company. I don't give a fuck if the CEO isn't making enough millions, once I buy it, it's mine.

Yeah once you buy it it's yours, once someone buys it from you it's used and can be subject to all sorts of problems. Like a used car with faulty brakes that you have to pay for. Only difference is that there isn't much opportunity for wear and tear on a disc, so a used copy is essentially in the same perfect condition it was when new, aka no incentive to buy new. And your Battlefield issue isn't much better. It's the same as obtaining a license for Photoshop (laughable, I know, who bought their PS license?. Stop bitching about it, it make perfect common and business sense. And maybe the millions aren't going to CEO's but to the employees. If a game loses money, the company loses money, meaning the people working for the company lose money because there's less profits to go around. I'm curious to see this hypothetical game studio composed of solely millionaire CEO's...

 

[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.

I know where the lion's share of the money goes, a little money to the devs is better than nothing.

And they should make money off used sales to stay in business.

You know for every person who says that publishers playing favorite to the customers who they actually make money off of is "Anti-consumer"

I can say that everyone who bitches and bitches about producers who want to make money is Communism*Implied scary voice

They're just doing this to encourage new game sales, they could have just as easily kept the content under their hat for a month or 2 and charged everybody full price for it, but they didn't. They gave it away for free out of the goodness of their black moneygrubbing hearts to anyone who actually payed for the fucking game. So stop whining and buy a new copy of Saint's Row 3.

You're sentence implies that people are communism. That's funny.

Look at the First Sale Doctrine. Then come back to me.

...

Go ahead. I'll wait.

The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell, lend or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy ends once ownership of that copy has passed to someone else, as long as the copy itself is not an infringing copy. This doctrine is also referred to as the "right of first sale," "first sale rule," or "exhaustion rule."

So...I don't see the problem. You can sell the disk and the content on said disk without permission from the publisher (Falls under First Sale Doctrine). However, multiplayer is a additional SERVICE which doesn't deal with who owns the physical disk, but who is using their servers to play. Which is a completely separate issue from what the First Sale Doctrine is about.

He was saying that devs should get money from the second hand sale of their games. Not just under multiplayer. That they are somehow entitled to break this rule. That is what I was refuting.

I assumed he was referring to Project Ten Dollar and other such things when he said they should make money off used game sales. I could be wrong, though.

It's possible. However, it seemed to me as though he was saying that they deserve money from second hand sales, which legally isn't the case. As in, they need to get a cut when the game sells used from GameStop or the like. I know that legally, they can do online passes. I just do not approve. It doesn't help win over consumer goodwill, at least not to me.