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

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

OOOOOHHHHH. Finding a flaw in my sentence structure then redirecting me to a Wikipedia page.
Is that's the best you can do?


So I read the First-sale doctrine and it doesn't even apply. Not even a little.

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.

By making the online pass a separate work they effectively closed that loop hole.
You thought an internet troll learned more about copyright by surfing the web than a lawyer for a major game publisher? That's funny.

Did you stop reading as soon as you found my faulty sentence structure or did you just choose to ignore the last part?

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.

I was doing so for laughs. Nothing more. The thing is, I've done the same sorta thing. I fully apologize if you were in any way take aback.

Secondly, I was referring to your part about game developers deserving a cut of second hand sales. Taken on it's own, that goes against the FSD. But if you were referring to them getting money though second hand sales through Online passes, yes. That's in accordance with the FSD. So perhaps we had a miss-communication. In which case, I apologize again.

Only by the letter, and only because they're claiming that the online portion isn't a part of the game itself -- it is, the code is on the bloody disc. The whole thing is an attempt at circumventing the right of first sale, using loopholes that the software industry just up and invented one day.

 

[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.

 

[MaoExE]

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.

I was just going to go on lurking but this made me facepalm.

1. Used games don't magically appear unless Mickey Mouse is nearby, so why should game developers be "entitled" to both sales. A game must be sold, if it is to be resold as "used"

2. Your talking more Operation 10$ not online passes. In this case they are not giving away any "free" content. The content is being LOCKED from users and this acts as a simple UNLOCK key, nothing more. Now if there truly were free content involved I would be on the side of the Developer's, but as it stands I honestly don't care.

 

[ServebotFrank]

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

No...I don't think you know how this works. Developers don't make money off of what the store sells. They make money when the store requests more copies to compete with demands. There's a thing called wholesale in the retail business which is why Valve can afford to sell their games dirt cheap. The store will buy the game for about $20-$30 depending on the demand for the game. The retail store then sells it for $60 to make up for the money spent buying the game.

Now for trading this in at Gamestop the developers LOSE money. Gamestop normally sell AAA titles like this used for about $55 and buy them from consumers dirt cheap. The developer will never see this money and this means the store can end up making more then the developers because people are buying from Gamestop pay just slightly less than retail price which cuts out the middle man. This means Gamestop makes about $40-$50 over it because they didn't have to pay the middle man.

This means new customers buy the game used and the money they pay goes completely to Gamestop. The developers only made money from one person and the other person spent money on the game which the developers will never see. This may not seem like much but it can really add up. No retail store when they get a used game go, "Hey THQ here's some money we made off a used game sale," they keep it for themselves.

Now why do people complain about this? It's an intelligent business move so they encourage people to buy games new which means more money. You think game companies make games for the kindness of their heart? Not completely they want to make money off this. You have to understand that this is a business.

Besides don't most people who complain about this shit buy the games new anyway? Buying the game new means you have a guarantee that the disc isn't screwed up because the previous jerk off handled it with a knife, and you get a free pass for something to do with the online aspect of the game.

You guys think running these servers are cheap? They're not so they don't want someone who didn't pay to come on there and not have to pay for the servers.

 

[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.

 

[ServebotFrank]

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

No...I don't think you know how this works. Developers don't make money off of what the store sells. They make money when the store requests more copies to compete with demands. There's a thing called wholesale in the retail business which is why Valve can afford to sell their games dirt cheap. The store will buy the game for about $20-$30 depending on the demand for the game. The retail store then sells it for $60 to make up for the money spent buying the game.

Now for trading this in at Gamestop the developers LOSE money. Gamestop normally sell AAA titles like this used for about $55 and buy them from consumers dirt cheap. The developer will never see this money and this means the store can end up making more then the developers because people are buying from Gamestop pay just slightly less than retail price which cuts out the middle man. This means Gamestop makes about $40-$50 over it because they didn't have to pay the middle man.

This means new customers buy the game used and the money they pay goes completely to Gamestop. The developers only made money from one person and the other person spent money on the game which the developers will never see. This may not seem like much but it can really add up. No retail store when they get a used game go, "Hey THQ here's some money we made off a used game sale," they keep it for themselves.

Now why do people complain about this? It's an intelligent business move so they encourage people to buy games new which means more money. You think game companies make games for the kindness of their heart? Not completely they want to make money off this. You have to understand that this is a business.

Besides don't most people who complain about this shit buy the games new anyway? Buying the game new means you have a guarantee that the disc isn't screwed up because the previous jerk off handled it with a knife, and you get a free pass for something to do with the online aspect of the game.

You guys think running these servers are cheap? They're not so they don't want someone who didn't pay to come on there and not have to pay for the servers.

 

[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?

 

[jonyboy13]

THQ you used to be cool, remember when we used to play Warhammer together? Now all you want to do is hang with the popular kids, do drugs and and sleep with porn stars.

For Shame.

(Also, is that note written on toilet paper?)

It all went to hell when they started charging us for painting the damn marines.

OT:
Well, that kinda suck.

 

[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.

 

[MrGalactus]

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.

So it's ok for a book publisher to say "You bought it used, therefore not paying full price as it was on the day of release? well then I guess you don't get chapters 5-9 then. Enjoy our book you bought with your money."

 

[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.

 

[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.

So it's ok for a book publisher to say "You bought it used, therefore not paying full price as it was on the day of release? well then I guess you don't get chapters 5-9 then. Enjoy our book you bought with your money."

Of course not. You see there's a difference here. When you buy Saints Row The Third used you get a complete experience of the game's offline part. If you want something extra you can choose to get the co-op part. If you don't have it you will still get the full story.
However if the publisher of the book had to pay to keep chapters 5-9 in the book like it costs THQ money to maintain online servers then they should be allowed to remove those chapters. If you compare this to a MMO you should be thrilled this isn't a monthly subscription.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Belated]

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.

 

[direkiller]

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

No...I don't think you know how this works. Developers don't make money off of what the store sells. They make money when the store requests more copies to compete with demands. There's a thing called wholesale in the retail business which is why Valve can afford to sell their games dirt cheap. The store will buy the game for about $20-$30 depending on the demand for the game. The retail store then sells it for $60 to make up for the money spent buying the game.

Now for trading this in at Gamestop the developers LOSE money. Gamestop normally sell AAA titles like this used for about $55 and buy them from consumers dirt cheap. The developer will never see this money and this means the store can end up making more then the developers because people are buying from Gamestop pay just slightly less than retail price which cuts out the middle man. This means Gamestop makes about $40-$50 over it because they didn't have to pay the middle man.

This means new customers buy the game used and the money they pay goes completely to Gamestop. The developers only made money from one person and the other person spent money on the game which the developers will never see. This may not seem like much but it can really add up. No retail store when they get a used game go, "Hey THQ here's some money we made off a used game sale," they keep it for themselves.

used sale!= person who whould have bought new

also i don't think you understand that if i choose to sell my licence to someone I am giving my up my option to play on there servers and selling that right to someone else

the company running the servers is not LOSING any extra money they are just not gaining any extra money because the same number of people are playing

your augment has flaws with very basic economic ideas/theorys

Now why do people complain about this? It's an intelligent business move so they encourage people to buy games new which means more money. You think game companies make games for the kindness of their heart? Not completely they want to make money off this. You have to understand that this is a business.

Besides don't most people who complain about this shit buy the games new anyway? Buying the game new means you have a guarantee that the disc isn't screwed up because the previous jerk off handled it with a knife, and you get a free pass for something to do with the online aspect of the game.

You guys think running these servers are cheap? They're not so they don't want someone who didn't pay to come on there and not have to pay for the servers.

1. you know stores have a return policy on used games right you can go to gamestop and get a refund if it dose not work.
2. Discouragement to buy used is not the same as encouragement to buy new. This is very true when it forces the new buyer to jump hoops as well.


no I know servers are not cheep. You have company doing it because it makes the game sell better. The benefit of extra sales outweighs the cost of servers.(this is why you saw tacked on multiplayer in FPS's for a while because the benefit of extra sales outweighs the cost)

Online passes do nothing more then treat new users like crap and treat used owners like criminals. It is never good when you want them to spend money now or on future titles.

 

[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...

 

[DustinOffAClassic]

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.

So if I wanted to have full access on multiple of my own systems or playing on a friend's system? Is it "entitled" of me to want to be able to do that?