This is a serious issue to me and many other used game buyers/gamers out there and it's just as big of an issue to you too, the new game buyers/gamers alike and here's why:

The game that is bought used was obviously not good enough to keep for the gamer that bought it new. So why should developers get money for games that failed to provide us the consumers with what we wanted? The game was sold and the developers got money off an unsatisfied gamer who basically turned around and sold off or traded his new, now used game. Then a used game buyer/gamer comes around and gives this game a second chance, he/she plays it and keeps it... the developers of that game have now truly earned the purchase of the new game buyer/gamer. Now lets assume the satisfied used game buyer/gamer has tried the 7 day trail of online to see if it's worth buying the onlne pass and likes it and buys it. The developers have essentially just stolen whatever $ the online pass is worth from us the gamers because this game was already bought new for 60$, get it?

This is a bit hard to explain but let me explain this in a different way just incase you didn't get it just yet, a game store or any game store for that matter always has a limited amount of copies of lets call it game X so if a gamer buys game X new or used they are buying the supply of game X in the market and if a game store runs out of game X then that game ran out of copies because so many people loved the game and kept it because they were that satisified... obviously the game is high in demand and the store will order more copies because of well deserved demand from us the consumers, the new/used game buyers/gamers. Yes even single player games should be so good that a gamer keeps it but then again... usually gamers who buy single player games buy it for different reasons (and will keep it if its good anyways) than a MP gamer would so  single player games also benefit from the used game market. Anyways this gives us the gamers a check on developers to make quality titles that are worth keeping.

So online passes are not necassary for any reason at all since the used game market is actually something that helps the industry. Not to mention charging gamers $ for a game that was already sold to us at full price is essentially theft...  games that failed to satisfy you cost more????????? Rewarding developers with an extra 5$ or whatever those online passes will cost for a product that failed to satisfy a new game buyer/gamer can't be good for the industry. Furthermore... yes if the online passes actually do happen and every MP game thats bought used requires an online pass everything will be evened out... but at who's cost? The used game buyer/gamer... the people that actually buy all the games out until the game store orders more copies because of such high demand because of well deserved demand. And guess who will benefit from this online pass scam... it will be the first developers/publishers who strike first with thier online pass requirements of used games. It's not some small indie gaming company that are thinking about this, it's EA and Activision.... some of the biggest and most successfull Publishers/Developers ... did anyone else hear the BS alarm go off? I sure did... you can already see them reaching into our pockets. These Publishers/  Developers which will get extra revenue (if we support this) ... not because they're games are of high quality but because they were first to strike with this unessassry online pass scam which we will reward them with by supporting online passes.

I also want to point out the options we would lose. Like if you buy a game new and think it sucks, that game store you bought it from will NOT give you a full refund as that game is not considered new but used and you will be forced to either accept the rip off of a trade in you will get. Yes it isn't that bad at first but it gets worse and you know it. So sucks for you pal...you could've bought it used and gotten either a 7 day return policy or store credit in full (probably, but I havent seen a store not have such policies)... either way you DON'T lose like you would've if you bought new... but if the online passes well.... passes and happen then this kind of situation would be worse because you used that online pass code and now the used game doesn't have an online code your used copy will have to sell for -$ what new game sells and -$ an online code pass. Again buying a used game is a check on developers so your still helping the industry if you buy used and this is one option we as gamers would lose.

EDIT: Another option we lose out on is our choice to have games as hard copies. Many games out there hate the idea of digital distribution (DLC)... with online passes.... we'd be more reliant on digital distribution. And like I described above... when you buy a game new and YOU think it sucks then the new game buyer will have to pay for that. And hey your hard copy of a game is now a hybrid. People hate that and Im not very fond of that idea as well. So if your against digital distrubution then this is also your fight too and you should be against online passes for the sheer dislike of DLC.

EDIT: Us being more reliant on digital distribution doesn't help those gamers that are not connected or those that are connected BUT don't wish to be connected. I'm talking about those people that wait for GOTY edition. People that want thier full game on hard copy. Being more reliant on digital distribution only works against this preference.

EDIT: What's next our option to rent games? Developers don't get money for people that want to see the full version of the game, gamefly does and video stores do. As someone in this thread mention it's a slippery slope and his right. Were going to lose more power and influence on the industry and that's bad for everyone.

EDIT: I've come to realization thanks to early posters on this thread that my reasoning makes sense in the launch of games where gamers intend to spend the most money and because of that I think its safe to say that because of the "high" investment in the game that they intend to keep it (the game) but my reasoning doesn't make sense later on when it's much cheaper and gamers buy games used to playthrough them once to enjoy the single player campaign and return them full refund borrowing the game or in another perspective "stealing" from the industry and not "voting" (buying) for certian quality titles that they themeselves think are quality. Anyways, I still think my argument is strong on the basis that usually games sell the most at launch and in the first couple months AND most importantly at the highest prices.

The used game market has always been there... in every industry... yet for some reason in video games we must keep paying for a game that's already been paid for? Oh but when you go online the servers... well then why hasn't PC gaming online implemented such fee's, it's been online since forever? But Calmador what about World of Warcraft... yes because they use servers that are extremely powerful (electric bill)and they are constantly adding content and lengthing the game and go figure ... want to get paid for it, that makes sense. Other then those exceptions... it wasnt until EA and Activision (as far as I know)... some of the biggest and most successful Publishers/developers in the gaming industry that such fee's were thought of. I think you should be a little suspiciouses... dontcha think?

EDIT: Lastly I want to ask you a simple question... why are games in the used market? Is it because there are so many glitches that the new game buyer traded in for 40$ cash back at gamestop (which will be lower if online passes happen) after buying it for 60$... is it because it just wasn't what the new game buyer expected at all and put it on ebay for 50$.... maybe the new game buyer thought the MP would be more fun and put on criagslist for 45$...  the used game market sends a message striaght to the developers... that message is we liked it or we didn't like it. It gives us more power and influence to get what WE want. It even gives developers a second chance to please it's customers. Bottom Line is that supporting online passes removes options you have now... sucks for on the budget gamers that wait until games are not 5$ cheaper but 30$ cheaper because that's how "wealthy" I am dam it!... gives developers money they didn't earn because the game was NOT good enought to be kept by the consumer and gives us the gamers a check to keep the quality up and the games we don't like out of store shelves. Think about it, I think I have good reasoning and if not I welcome correction.

POWER TO THE PLAYER

Thank you for your time and

Smile.

VVV

Rubbish. Unless you're a collector like me, then there is really NO reason to keep a single player experience game like Bioshock, and that deserves all the sales it can get. Just face facts, gaming is a luxury. You have no right to moan about not being able to afford top whack .....

It just means that used games will now be worth $X less than they were before.  If a used game would normally go for $35, it will now go for $30 if they choose a $5 online fee.

I'm primarly talking about the online pass buddy. But I see your point about single player games. THAT might actually need a pass. But atleast in the beginning of the launch of a single player game, when people fork over 60$ (I imagine they intend to keep thier investment) and don't like the game... sell it, trade it or whatever... then the used market gives the developers a second chance to actually make up for their failure to satisfy that new game buyer's purchase.

But your point does make sense much later on when the game is much cheaper. On the other hand... games usually sell the most in their launch so.. I think I mostly "win". And Bioshock sold pretty well... 2.6 million (not to mention what it sold on PS3)... I also wish it would've sold more but I think that's great considering this gens hunger for MP games instead of single player games... it's trend.

And pay for something that's already been paid for... support essentailly theft? Pay for a game that didn't satisfy us (the new game buyer in particular)?

Yep and if everyone was like you

you will see less and less inotive games and will be tuck with the same old games that will start getting big numbers on the end. because Used games ups the risks and developers and publishers dont want that risk 

lets say they need 1 million copies of the game to break even 

250,000 people buy the game new: the devoloper gets the money but needs another 750,000 new copies sold to break even or else they go bust and close down and wont be heard of again or will stop making that game. 

out of those 250,000 sales majority are sold back used, new gamers buy the used games instead of new since its cheaper, they then re sell the game and its re bought again in an endless cycle. 

in the end only 250,000 are sold. but 1 million  gamers have played the game. if there was no used games then the developer would make an another game for.

another issue with Used games is that the difference between an used game and an new one is absolutely zero, while if you buy an used car they have an higher chance of breaking down, may be wore out. but an game can last years and years and still be in prefect condition and offer the same as the new product. 

Used games are crippling the industry. If there was no used game sales, the sales of games would be much higher, more innovative games would be released and much bigger and bolder games would hit the stores with publishers investing more money due to the risk and with that the gamer Wins all the time. 

So here is something for you: would you pay less and see the industry and your favourite past time crumble or pay the little bit more and help the industry grow and produce you more and more games. 

Game developers spend MILLIONS of dollars on developing a game for you entertainment. This is there effort, their work, their man hours. So many games get a lot of shit including game like Price is Right. Where a programmer, artist, modeler, designed, QA, sound.... who spend thousands of hours to work on the game. This is their work. It's developers money to have these games made. 

Then there are those people who stand over a game and shit on it because it's not good enough. Then theres people who in a way WORSE get the game and don't give a cent to the people who made it. Why the hell should one qaulity of game be more important than another?     do you really think that these people who spend hours of work on a game should not get paid? you want these people to go out of business? When you don't buy a game it's no different than pirates.

I've bought used games. I know I will continue to buy used games, but if developers want to give an incentive to buy new. Then hell yes. These developers should get their money even if it's a low "qaulity" game. This PRO used game market stance is just selfish. You as a consumer are 1/3 part of the industry. When you buy used and are pro used, you are damaging another 1/3 while giving extra to the other 1/3. 

Heres my suggestion instead. Advocate good online passes by buying them new. Then convince people to NOT buy the ones abused. You know the ones where the DLC is no more than a bit switch in the save game file to activate new colours. I'm looking at you CAPCOM.

Seriously this anti online pass is getting disgusting.

Reason stands to believe that the only people with legitimate complaints against one time use online passes or content codes would be those who make a habit of buying used games.

Frankly, I'm not sure why any consumer who habitually buys new games would even care unless they also sold most of their games and the lack of a code voucher reduced the "resale" value of their games.

While nobody should deny that the secondary market for games is a significant chunk of the overall industry, developers and publishers don't receive a dollar more whether an individual copy of their game is sold once, or a hundred times.

In short, they don't have any incentive to give anything to those who prefer to buy used. The incentives go to those who pre-order or buy new.

DLC is one way publishers have been able to generate extra revenue from used game sales, but this is hardly intended as a substitute for the sale of copies that actually count towards the total number of units a given game sells (which often determines budget for the next project).

Don't like it? Buy a new game on sale. They're often cheaper than used copies anyway if you catch the good deals.

I think the real luxury here is getting a game new, and getting it at launch (or at least early). And luxury has risks of being a waste of money, and companies exploit these luxuries to make more money. It's normal. Online pass is just like software licensing. I'm not saying I'm happy about it, but it's just like some computer programs - you can't really resell the program (legally) with the registration under your name. Hence the new user will have to purchase his own license, on top of buying the used disc. It's a different business model, and yes, consumers gotta fork out more, but what can we do.

At least we still have free will. Hence if one wants to save money, put it in the bank.

Meh. I will always buy the games I am going to play online as soon as possible. For example, NHL games. You buy one every year and get next to nothing selling it next year. Nothing will change.