Why i don't support online passes for console games.

I've been buying brand new and used video games for quite a long time now. But i must say that this is going to be unfavorable among consumers who don't always have the money to purchase a new game. especially if they have not been anticipating the release of it! this practice is nonsense and it's a obvious money grab to cripple the consumers purchasing power. What i am talking about are online passes that are required in order to play your used copy of a game you may have bought from gamestop, or one you simply borrowed from a friend to justify the purchase this game in the near future. 
 
When you are in the market of video games, You have a certain amount of money to spend on average. Who knows if you only have enough money to buy one game, that may be the only game you get to play for the whole year! Crippling the online portion of the game will have consequences not only on the consumer, but the game publishers and retailers as well. What if retailers need to get rid of a crippled copy of the video game and need to rotate the games fast? They may slash the prices so low, that consumers will buy the used copy instead of the brand new one. because they get punished with a silly key code ether way. this in turn may force the retail giants to lower the price of the sealed copy as well.  This also hurts the publisher from selling copies of the game. 
 
Some people may argue this is why you don't see used PC games laying around. Well for one, PC Games are usually $10 less then their console counter part and having a steam account for the last three years doesn't seem to bother me one bit. I haven't had to buy any silly passes and i can install the game as many times as i want. Don't get me wrong, i love console gaming. But i have never seen so much greed in the console gaming market! 
 
In turn, this wasn't meant to be a really professional forum post or anything. It's just me sounding off on my displeasure in why Game publishers are always punishing their consumers, instead of rewarding them. with these senseless fees and holding back on features that should of already been implemented in the game.

Servers cost money.

Servers cost money.

Usually the price is a $5 difference between a new and used game though.  At least where I'm at.

I don't really know what you just said.
 
If you're buying a game used then you are not a customer of that game's publisher, and they are therefore not beholden to you in any way.  They are providing their customers with the service they paid for and I see nothing wrong with that.

If you buy used games, you are no longer any game publishers customer.  They get no money from you.  Why should you get to use their online services?

i agree, they are annoying to get those. it's going to make games gone. companies are trying to kill used market place because they don't get any of the money from used games. i do think the companies sell the code so people that got the game used for what ever reason, they can make money.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with online passes. Used games have been plaguing game developers for ages now and finally they find a decent way that doesn't add to the cost of a new retail game, and everyone's whining. If you cannot afford a game at new when it releases, I am sorry. It is an entertainment item, not a necessity. The ONLY reason I can afford the amount of games I have now is because of my job and how much work I put into it. There is no reason that an expensive entertainment developer should have to cater to the "poor" because they wont be able to get the game come release.

Also, if they are not following the game and come across is randomly but cannot afford it, good. Impulse buying is retarded and if your parents taught you anything about the value of your money, its that you need to know what your buying beforehand.

Usually the price is a $5 difference between a new and used game though.  At least where I'm at.

When you buy a used game the developer has no monetary reason to care about you. By adding online passes, they at least can get a small portion of the used game markets money.

@Spoonman671 said:

Servers cost money.

What servers? How many servers do you really think are needed to perform matchmaking on all but the most popular games? More importantly, who fucking cares? If it' that expensive, raise the price of your games. There is no justification other than a moneygrab by people who would love to do away with the second hand market (the same way publishers would love to get rid of the second hand market - and libraries, for that matter). Don't screw the consumer, because you can't deal with the fact that people can buy and sell used things in the world. More importantly, I'm tired of hearing apologists act entirely ignorant of the idea that the used market and piracy don't have to be involved for, say, more than one person to need to play the same copy of a game. Seriously, if I already paid full price at launch for it, why am I being punished when I want to let a sibling or roommate or other person in my household play the game, too?

How many people in your house use cable television or internet access? Does your cable or internet company charge you extra for each person in your household that utilizes the service you're already paying for?

A lot of the op is rather nonsensical.

If you buy used games, you are no longer any game publishers customer.  They get no money from you.  Why should you get to use their online services?

A lot of the op is rather nonsensical.

@Branthog said:

@Spoonman671 said:

Servers cost money.

What servers? If it' that expensive, raise the price of your games.

Wut? You'd rather multiplayer games cost more rather than having a code? Which, of course, you can purchase even if you bought a cheap, pre-owned copy? I'm not arguing that multiplayer servers DO cost loads (I really don't know) but your point is all over the place.

@SpikeSpiegel said:

When you buy a used game the developer has no monetary reason to care about you. By adding online passes, they at least can get a small portion of the used game markets money.

If I buy the game at full price ($65, inc tax) and then buy $30-45 worth of their bullshit DLC, how does the developer not have a monetary reason to care about me? Why do I then need to pay another $10 for every person who lives in my household who might want to play the game, too? And also, boo hoo. I'm in the software development industry, but I'm donning my consumer hat here and saying "your business model failures are not my concern".

@deusdigit said:

@DVombatus: If @DVombatus said:

If you buy used games, you are no longer any game publishers customer. They get no money from you. Why should you get to use their online services?

If that was the case, then they wouldn't need your $5 dollars to use their service. That would make you a customer and a consumer if you paid that online fee to play their product they intended for everyone to play and enjoy. Also, this is nothing like piracy. If you buy that game from someone, the physical copy disappears from that persons hands and they get their money back and you lose money and it appears into your hands. if everyone had the money to buy the game new, i am sure they would.

MAKE SOME SENSE, MAN

@deusdigit said:

What if retailers need to get rid of a crippled copy of the video game and need to rotate the games fast? They may slash the prices so low, that consumers will buy the used copy instead of the brand new one.

Sounds like a good deal to the consumers to me. Buy a super cheap used game, then get a $10 online pass. You pay less money. Publisher still gets theirs.

@deusdigit said:

this in turn may force the retail giants to lower the price of the sealed copy as well

1. Once again sounds like a good thing for the consumer, since it would finally move publishers away from the bullshit $60 price for every retail game. If this scenario you are speculating about even did happen.
2. This isn't going to happen in any foreseeable future, as even now retail games already get price drops all the time according to the game demand/shelf space/and copy supply.

@deusdigit said:

Some people may argue this is why you don't see used PC games laying around. Well for one, PC Games are usually $10 less then their console counter part and having a steam account for the last three years doesn't seem to bother me one bit. I haven't had to buy any silly passes and i can install the game as many times as i want. Don't get me wrong, i love console gaming. But i have never seen so much greed in the console gaming market!

1. PC games are less $10 simply due to not having to pay platform tax.
2. All your Steam games are original purchases not used or rentals, so this has 0 bearing on the argument.
3. There are almost no used PC sales since piracy effectively killed off that niche market. You either have the $ and want developer to get it so by the game new, and if you don't piracy is easier then used games or rent.

@deusdigit said:

It's just me sounding off on my displeasure in why Game publishers are always punishing their consumers, instead of rewarding them. with these senseless fees and holding back on features that should of already been implemented in the game.

1. You are not the game publishers consumer when buying a used game. If you buy used and get the code, you are their consumer and you get all the features.
2. The features that are held back are indeed already in the game.

There are plenty of arguments that can be made for and against online passes, but the above ain't them.

@SpikeSpiegel said:

When you buy a used game the developer has no monetary reason to care about you. By adding online passes, they at least can get a small portion of the used game markets money.

If I buy the game at full price ($65, inc tax) and then buy $30-45 worth of their bullshit DLC, how does the developer not have a monetary reason to care about me? Why do I then need to pay another $10 for every person who lives in my household who might want to play the game, too? And also, boo hoo. I'm in the software development industry, but I'm donning my consumer hat here and saying "your business model failures are not my concern".

@deusdigit said:

@DVombatus: If @DVombatus said:

If you buy used games, you are no longer any game publishers customer. They get no money from you. Why should you get to use their online services?

If that was the case, then they wouldn't need your $5 dollars to use their service. That would make you a customer and a consumer if you paid that online fee to play their product they intended for everyone to play and enjoy. Also, this is nothing like piracy. If you buy that game from someone, the physical copy disappears from that persons hands and they get their money back and you lose money and it appears into your hands. if everyone had the money to buy the game new, i am sure they would.

MAKE SOME SENSE, MAN

@deusdigit: It really didn't make any sense. It's unclear. You're contradicting yourself, too. My original point stands.

@deusdigit said:

@GreggD said:

@deusdigit said:

@DVombatus: If @DVombatus said:

If you buy used games, you are no longer any game publishers customer. They get no money from you. Why should you get to use their online services?

If that was the case, then they wouldn't need your $5 dollars to use their service. That would make you a customer and a consumer if you paid that online fee to play their product they intended for everyone to play and enjoy. Also, this is nothing like piracy. If you buy that game from someone, the physical copy disappears from that persons hands and they get their money back and you lose money and it appears into your hands. if everyone had the money to buy the game new, i am sure they would.

MAKE SOME SENSE, MAN

Plenty of it was already made clear, sorry you can't use your mind to wrap your head around that concept. :)

If you buy a used game you are indeed not their consumer. If you buy a used game then get the online code then you are and you are getting all the features.

Sorry you can't wrap your mind around that simple concept.

@deusdigit said:

Game publishers are always punishing their consumers, instead of rewarding them.

They're rewarding the consumer with online play for buying it new. Like others have said if you buy it second hand, you're not technically that publishers' consumer. I didn't care for the online pass at first, but over the months it's warmed to me and seems justified overall.

@Branthog said:

@SpikeSpiegel said:

When you buy a used game the developer has no monetary reason to care about you. By adding online passes, they at least can get a small portion of the used game markets money.

If I buy the game at full price ($65, inc tax) and then buy $30-45 worth of their bullshit DLC, how does the developer not have a monetary reason to care about me? Why do I then need to pay another $10 for every person who lives in my household who might want to play the game, too? And also, boo hoo. I'm in the software development industry, but I'm donning my consumer hat here and saying "your business model failures are not my concern".

I'm not saying that I agree with the logic but that must be how they're looking at it. Besides, PC games have been doing this for forever and it isn't that big of a deal.

Online passes are good for the industry. Publishers and developers get there money as well as providing even more features for the multiplayer. 
 
In the case of BBC2, DICE added over 18 maps to the game during the course of the VIP pass. The did this because they new all the customers would had the VIP supported them directly, so DICE in turn support the multiplayer with free maps.   

@deusdigit said:

What if retailers need to get rid of a crippled copy of the video game and need to rotate the games fast? They may slash the prices so low, that consumers will buy the used copy instead of the brand new one.

Sounds like a good deal to the consumers to me. Buy a super cheap used game, then get a $10 online pass. You pay less money. Publisher still gets theirs.

@deusdigit said:

this in turn may force the retail giants to lower the price of the sealed copy as well

1. Once again sounds like a good thing for the consumer, since it would finally move publishers away from the bullshit $60 price for every retail game. If this scenario you are speculating about even did happen.
2. This isn't going to happen in any foreseeable future, as even now retail games already get price drops all the time according to the game demand/shelf space/and copy supply.

@deusdigit said:

Some people may argue this is why you don't see used PC games laying around. Well for one, PC Games are usually $10 less then their console counter part and having a steam account for the last three years doesn't seem to bother me one bit. I haven't had to buy any silly passes and i can install the game as many times as i want. Don't get me wrong, i love console gaming. But i have never seen so much greed in the console gaming market!

1. PC games are less $10 simply due to not having to pay platform tax. 
2. All your Steam games are original purchases not used or rentals, so this has 0 bearing on the argument.
3. There are almost no used PC sales since piracy effectively killed off that niche market. You either have the $ and want developer to get it so by the game new, and if you don't piracy is easier then used games or rent.

@deusdigit said:

It's just me sounding off on my displeasure in why Game publishers are always punishing their consumers, instead of rewarding them. with these senseless fees and holding back on features that should of already been implemented in the game.

1. You are not the game publishers consumer when buying a used game. If you buy used and get the code, you are their consumer and you get all the features.
2. The features that are held back are indeed already in the game.

There are plenty of arguments that can be made for and against online passes, but the above ain't them.

@deusdigit: It really didn't make any sense. It's unclear. You're contradicting yourself, too. My original point stands.

If you buy used games, you are no longer any game publishers customer.  They get no money from you.  Why should you get to use their online services?

@deusdigit said:

I've been buying brand new and used video games for quite a long time now. But i must say that this is going to be unfavorable among consumers who don't always have the money to purchase a new game. especially if they have not been anticipating the release of it! this practice is nonsense and it's a obvious money grab to cripple the consumers purchasing power. What i am talking about are online passes that are required in order to play your used copy of a game you may have bought from gamestop, or one you simply borrowed from a friend to justify the purchase this game in the near future. When you are in the market of video games, You have a certain amount of money to spend on average. Who knows if you only have enough money to buy one game, that may be the only game you get to play for the whole year! Crippling the online portion of the game will have consequences not only on the consumer, but the game publishers and retailers as well. What if retailers need to get rid of a crippled copy of the video game and need to rotate the games fast? They may slash the prices so low, that consumers will buy the used copy instead of the brand new one. because they get punished with a silly key code ether way. this in turn may force the retail giants to lower the price of the sealed copy as well. This also hurts the publisher from selling copies of the game. Some people may argue this is why you don't see used PC games laying around. Well for one, PC Games are usually $10 less then their console counter part and having a steam account for the last three years doesn't seem to bother me one bit. I haven't had to buy any silly passes and i can install the game as many times as i want. Don't get me wrong, i love console gaming. But i have never seen so much greed in the console gaming market! In turn, this wasn't meant to be a really professional forum post or anything. It's just me sounding off on my displeasure in why Game publishers are always punishing their consumers, instead of rewarding them. with these senseless fees and holding back on features that should of already been implemented in the game.

A few things:

1. The average gamer is male between 18-34. Meaning that they most likely have disposable income and don;t have to save up their pennies for 6 months to afford a $10-$20% discounted used game.

2. How is it fair to the people who make... lets say Demons Souls(From Software) to sell their game they spent 2 years making for $45 dollars to Gamestop who sells it to a bunch of people who preorder it for $60 and sell it back to Gamestop a week later for $20 who in turn slaps a sticker on it and flips it again for $55? It looks like Gamestop made $50 of profit of the game while From Software only got $45. Bad business.

3. As for the part about the pubhlisher moving less copies of games due to sales lost by poor people buying used games. The publishers arent seeing a dime of that money anyways without the online passes.

4. Online passes only seem to affect first month game pawns. You can buy a new game for $60 or a used one for $50 + $10 pass = $60. Either way the publisher is getting more of their fair share.

Buying a conservative $10 online pass to unlock a few features in a used game(get for free with new copies) is just good business to everyone except pawn shops like Gamestop. A loss that only the gaming minority(children) would care about anyways.

I personally don't think publishers should be forced to cater for the used games market. In an ideal world players who buy new should get the full game as well something extra and used sales just get the full game; the reality is making games is a business, and for a business to exist it needs to make money and the online pass is an effective way to do this.

I think one of the major issues I have is the clarity of the message that an extra £10 is required to play used games online. Whilst gamers like ourselves that frequent forums are well aware and adjust our price sensitivity accordingly, the general consumer may think seeing a used copy of MK for £20 is a bargain and not be aware that they need to effectively pay £30 to get the full product, effectively the cost of buying it new. Looking at the MK box, there's absolutely no indication that any extra fees (outside of an Xbox Live Subscription) are required to play online.

As for retailers lowering prices, it seems that used games (at least in my experience in the UK) have remained the same despite the evolution of the online pass.

@deusdigit:

Okay 2 examples

1. Buy a Game New your money goes to (Developer, Publisher, Distributor, Console fee)
2. Buy a Game Used your money goes to (Distributor and NO ONE ELSE)

So you think it is wrong for Developers to lock you out of content you did not pay them for ya that makes sense in BAZARROLAND!!!

@Tennmuerti: I think so far you have given really good explanations well done.

@deusdigit said:

@GreggD said:

@deusdigit said:

@DVombatus: If @DVombatus said:

If you buy used games, you are no longer any game publishers customer. They get no money from you. Why should you get to use their online services?

If that was the case, then they wouldn't need your $5 dollars to use their service. That would make you a customer and a consumer if you paid that online fee to play their product they intended for everyone to play and enjoy. Also, this is nothing like piracy. If you buy that game from someone, the physical copy disappears from that persons hands and they get their money back and you lose money and it appears into your hands. if everyone had the money to buy the game new, i am sure they would.

MAKE SOME SENSE, MAN

Plenty of it was already made clear, sorry you can't use your mind to wrap your head around that concept. :)

If you buy a used game you are indeed not their consumer. If you buy a used game then get the online code then you are and you are getting all the features.

Sorry you can't wrap your mind around that simple concept.

If you buy used games, you are no longer any game publishers customer.  They get no money from you.  Why should you get to use their online services?

@Toms115 said:

@DVombatus said:

If you buy used games, you are no longer any game publishers customer. They get no money from you. Why should you get to use their online services?

tough shit. people have the right to buy used whether you or the publishers like it or not. there's no block when you buy books or dvds off of ebay so i dunno why people think games are special.

You sir have that right. You just didn't purchase a pass to use their servers or bandwidth. I hope you like single player!

@DVombatus said:

If you buy used games, you are no longer any game publishers customer.  They get no money from you.  Why should you get to use their online services?

tough shit. people have the right to buy used whether you or the publishers like it or not. there's no block when you buy books or dvds off of ebay so i dunno why people think games are special.

I support online passes. If you want to play the portion of the game that continues to create costs for the publisher after the game is released I think it's fair for them to charge for it. I also think these online passes should come with trials so that it is still possible to borrow and rent games and experience all they have to offer. It might even turn a few rentals into sales. 
 
I realize this isn't the point of the argument, but how enticing are used games these days anyway? If you really care about the multiplayer you're probably getting the game when it's fairly new. Lots of big titles have been on sale quite a bit below GameStop's used prices and often even ebay prices shortly after release. You could get Portal 2 for like $35 a week after release. I just looked up a couple of random games that are now a few months old and compared new on Amazon with used at GameStop. Bulletstorm from Amazon is a dollar more for a new copy of the 360 version and is $5 cheaper for the PS3. Killzone 3 is $6 cheaper for a new copy. Dead Space 2 is a $1.50 more new for both platforms, although in most states the tax would make Amazon cheaper. Black Ops is a dollar cheaper on 360 and $4 cheaper on the PS3. Is it really worth getting used?

If I were a developer I would work out a way to deny patches as well as online gaming and dlc for the next generation of consoles. Similar to what Impulse does with Sins of a Solar Empire.

@deusdigit said:

1. You are quite the consumer if you decide to buy DLC Content from them. regardless of a used copy, it helps drive revenue and profits. 2.The only time retailers will drop the price on a video game, is if enough of that game was in demand to begin with and it sold so much that it's already widely in circulation and its already catered to the audience it was intended for. Supply and demand are apart of basic economics. However, this is not quite how it worked with the Call of Duty games, because modern warfare 2 was still pretty expensive even when black ops came out.3. The point i should have made about steam, is that maybe publishers should distribute their content threw digital distribution so they can't complain about the used game market. Then this would force people to buy the game new.

1. You said nothing of DLC in your initial argument, nor did I address it ... how is it related to anything I said? Furthermore why are you buying DLC for an online portion of the game if you don't have an online pass?
2. MW2 dropped in price much slower but it still dropped, you are supporting what I said. But not actually addressing my point to which the statement about retail prices was in support of.
3. A - More then half home consoles are still not connected to the internet. B - this is up to the console manufactures like Microsoft and Sony, not up to the publishers.

@deusdigit said:

@Tennmuerti said:

@deusdigit said:

Plenty of it was already made clear, sorry you can't use your mind to wrap your head around that concept. :)

If you buy a used game you are indeed not their consumer. If you buy a used game then get the online code then you are and you are getting all the features.

Sorry you can't wrap your mind around that simple concept.

You guys should be more formal and less immature when you make responses. Be clear and precise.

Note how I used the same form of reply as your post. The only person who initially brought immaturity to this thread is YOU. All I had to do is throw it back at you.

Is that clear enough?

All the points about how someone that buys a used copy is not a consumer were already made but there's something even more important to be considered.

When you're buying a game you ARE NOT buying the physical copy, you are buying THE RIGHTS to use that IP (Intellectual property) . So much that you can actually make a copy of your own game (rip it and burn it yourself) for backup uses, there is no legal infraction doing this.

Said rights are PERSONAL AND NOT TRANSFERABLE which means that you CANNOT sell it. All things considered, you should not be allowed to sell a used copy of a game because the copy itself has no value, only the rights to use it.

With that being said I believe that the online passes are a very elegant solution to the issue of used sales, that do hurt a lot the developers/publishers, without hurting the consumers that buy their games new.

I love online passes. One step closer to having all games come with serial codes. Jeff talks about it on his vyou account and I agree with him 100%.

Reading through this topic it is clear the OP is a troll.

If you buy used games, you are no longer any game publishers customer.  They get no money from you.  Why should you get to use their online services?

I love online passes. One step closer to having all games come with serial codes. Jeff talks about it on his vyou account and I agree with him 100%.

Video game consumers have to be one of very few groups who are apologists for the companies that do everything they can to squeeze a dollar out of you.

I asked Jeff this a couple days ago. This was his response, which I agree with him 100%.

@Khann said:

Video game consumers have to be one of very few groups who are apologists for the companies that do everything they can to squeeze a dollar out of you.

I just wanted to quote this to highlight the stupidity in this comment.

Video game consumers have to be one of very few groups who are apologists for the companies that do everything they can to squeeze a dollar out of you.

Keep in mind that videogames are the only industry that have this issue with used sales. Used CDs and DVDs may not be sold in high street chains, but they're easy to find and distributors have never made any effort to stop the practice. You'd also have to be an idiot to think that these profits are passed on to the developers. While online passes encourage people to buy new copies which reflects better on the developers, only a fraction of the money made from sales goes to the developers in any case (most developers operate on a loss, which is why they have publishers to fund them in the first place). It's a Catch-22 situation in the end; Buying used games doesn't count as a sale for the publisher, and buying a new game tells the publisher that online passes are a good incentive to buy new games. 

@Vasari: When you buy a CD or DVD or book there is no ongoing service.