By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Why we SHOULDN'T SUPPORT online passes.... and USED GAME MARKET MATTERS

loves2splooge on 26 October 2010

I have rented two EA Online Pass games (FIFA 11 and EA Sports MMA) as well as UFC Undisputed 2010, which uses a similar sort of system but its not by EA ($5 for a pass but no free trial like in EA's Online Pass).

I didnt even bother with the online pass FREE TRIAL for FIFA 11. I played through one MLS season and I hunted for some achievements and what not. That was enough for me. Its a great game but I had my fill. I didnt really care to play it any longer and wanted to play something else. If a friend of mine wanted to play this game with me online on a regular basis, I would buy it. But otherwise, I had my fill of the game. I wanted to move on to another rental.

As for EA Sports MMA, I really dig the game. It's awesome and I am using the free 7 day online pass trial at the moment to play online. But none of my buddies would be interested in this kind of game. And I get my ass kicked online (I have a losing record and a long losing streak). So I don't see a point in continuing with the game after my online pass trial expires at the end of the week. So no real point in buying the game or buying an online pass. I've already went through career twice and got all my offline achievements. I still have like 5 days left on my pass and I'm already getting sick of the online. Tired of getting pwnd. lol. If anything Id rather play with the offline more despite getting all the offline achievements.

As for UFC Undisputed 2010, I didn't really enjoy that game much. I loved UFC Undisputed 2009 and I own the game. But when I played UFC Undisputed 2010, it felt old hat. It wasn't as fun as UFC Undisputed 2009 felt when it was out. The Undisputed series is getting stale. THQ even decided to switch to bi-annual releases instead of annual releases precisely because MMA fans are getting sick of the franchise.

At the end of the day gaming is a luxury and gaming companies can try to do whatever the fuck they want within the confines of the law. That doesn't mean gaming developers are entitled to our support. As a consumer, I'm going to do what's best for my wallet and hey if you want to pay $60 for everything whether it's a short single-player game or a meaty long rpg or online multiplayer game, go right ahead. It's your money. I've voted with my dollars by passing on the EA Online Pass and THQ's online pass. I would consider buying FIFA 11 to play with a friend but I would have done that pass or no pass since renting doesn't exactly lend itself well to regular ongoing online play. And I rarely buy used. I haven't bought used in well over a year.



Around the Network
kitler53 on 26 October 2010
Mr Khan said:
Barozi said:
Mr Khan said:
Barozi said:
 

Do what you like to do traitor.

I buy all of my games day one when i can and never resell them, even stuff i have little intention of playing again (Crystal Bearers), but i will not stand to have my rights taken away, even the ones i choose not to exercise. Online pass doesn't affect me at all (all the moreso because its limited to consoles i don't own), but it's an atrocious mentality on the part of publishers to think they could get away with it, and we need to stop it before it gets further out of control

It just bugs me to see people actually standing up for this, as i can see few good explanations as to why

And I haven't seen a single good reason why online passes shouldn't be done, so ?

I explained it already

And the logic of paying for online services is absurd, because these services are paid for at the initial purchase. One copy of the game goes out into the consumer environment. However that copy changes hands, that's still only one copy of the game that's using those resources. We end up paying them money that they've already told us they don't need.


that arugment is just soo not right.  online services dont' cost $60 to run.  by your logic, EA could put 20M into developing a game, sell 1 copy at $60 and be happy because they got the initial purchase price of that one copy.  i mean, who case if the public passes that copy around to 10M times...EA got their initial purchase price.



Tuganuno on 26 October 2010
Calmador said:

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 at full price... making 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. And it's not some small indie gaming company that is thinking about this, it's EA and Activision.... some of the biggest Publishers/Developers ... can someone hear the BS alarm go off? I sure can... you can alredy see them reaching into our pockets. These Developers/Publishers 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.

MY EYES!! MY BEAUTIFUL EYES ;_;

To be honest, that's really damn long and I have a shitload of stuff to study this week, so I'll just say that an Online Pass ain't that expensive and you should consider ('cause you most likely didn't) that used games will devaluate alot more thus having to pay just a little bit more for the bundle (Game Online Pass) - More profit for the Developers, less money for the retaillers who sell used games at ridiculous prices. Plus when you lend a game to a friend, you have to consider that your friend isn't contributing in anything for the company, even tho he's enjoying their work for free. And it's not like you won't be able to enjoy the game: you'll still be able to play everything the game has to offer, offline. If you don't feel like it's worthy of spending 10€ or so to get the Online, then don't. No one is forcing you.

Yes, I do understand most people's point of view, because us, the gamers, do get bs'd by huge companies. But if you want to boycott anything, you should start with DLCs that are being sold on the first week the game was released... or 5 recycled maps for 15€. Those are the true rip offs, not an attempt of increasing the games sales or at least make a bit of profit on the sales of used games/ borrowed games.

Case I completely missed your point, I might have 'cause once again, I didn't read so I'm just supposing what you said as an agry game towards EA and so on, I'll read the whole thing and make a completely new reply. Cheers



Mr Khan on 26 October 2010
kitler53 said:
Mr Khan said:
Barozi said:
Mr Khan said:
Barozi said:
 

Do what you like to do traitor.

I buy all of my games day one when i can and never resell them, even stuff i have little intention of playing again (Crystal Bearers), but i will not stand to have my rights taken away, even the ones i choose not to exercise. Online pass doesn't affect me at all (all the moreso because its limited to consoles i don't own), but it's an atrocious mentality on the part of publishers to think they could get away with it, and we need to stop it before it gets further out of control

It just bugs me to see people actually standing up for this, as i can see few good explanations as to why

And I haven't seen a single good reason why online passes shouldn't be done, so ?

I explained it already

And the logic of paying for online services is absurd, because these services are paid for at the initial purchase. One copy of the game goes out into the consumer environment. However that copy changes hands, that's still only one copy of the game that's using those resources. We end up paying them money that they've already told us they don't need.


that arugment is just soo not right.  online services dont' cost $60 to run.  by your logic, EA could put 20M into developing a game, sell 1 copy at $60 and be happy because they got the initial purchase price of that one copy.  i mean, who case if the public passes that copy around to 10M times...EA got their initial purchase price.

Because that means that 10 million different people would be using that service one at a time. On EA's end, that still amounts to only one user, as far as expenses go. The only way that argument might have a point is what KylieDog brought up (though given server retirement, it's not as big of a deal), is that they would have to keep the server running longer, but in terms of expense for server capacity, used sales are a non-issue



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan on 26 October 2010
Tuganuno said:
Calmador said:

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 at full price... making 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. And it's not some small indie gaming company that is thinking about this, it's EA and Activision.... some of the biggest Publishers/Developers ... can someone hear the BS alarm go off? I sure can... you can alredy see them reaching into our pockets. These Developers/Publishers 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.

MY EYES!! MY BEAUTIFUL EYES ;_;

To be honest, that's really damn long and I have a shitload of stuff to study this week, so I'll just say that an Online Pass ain't that expensive and you should consider ('cause you most likely didn't) that used games will devaluate alot more thus having to pay just a little bit more for the bundle (Game Online Pass) - More profit for the Developers, less money for the retaillers who sell used games at ridiculous prices. Plus when you lend a game to a friend, you have to consider that your friend isn't contributing in anything for the company, even tho he's enjoying their work for free. And it's not like you won't be able to enjoy the game: you'll still be able to play everything the game has to offer, offline. If you don't feel like it's worthy of spending 10€ or so to get the Online, then don't. No one is forcing you.

Yes, I do understand most people's point of view, because us, the gamers, do get bs'd by huge companies. But if you want to boycott anything, you should start with DLCs that are being sold on the first week the game was released... or 5 recycled maps for 15€. Those are the true rip offs, not an attempt of increasing the games sales or at least make a bit of profit on the sales of used games/ borrowed games.

Case I completely missed your point, I might have 'cause once again, I didn't read so I'm just supposing what you said as an agry game towards EA and so on, I'll read the whole thing and make a completely new reply. Cheers

Still we see this sudden exceptionalism when it comes to gaming. Should libraries feel guilty about whoring books out over and over again, though the author only recieved one payment? Should i feel bad for poor Chrysler if i lend my car to a buddy, or shed a tear for Toro if i lend my neighbor my lawnmower?



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
Severance on 26 October 2010

Can you explain to me how Used game sales is any different than pirating?

one gives the money to the previous owner / the guy at the store.

the second is not give money at all.

both lead to the publisher / developer not getting anything in return , and to whoever replied to me, i clearly said "support your favourite developer" , its not a charity , its not serving , its not blindly giving money away, its SUPPORTING your FAVORITE developer, so that they make more games you enjoy.



I live for the burn...and the sting of pleasure...
I live for the sword, the steel, and the gun...

- Wasteland - The Mission.

whatever on 26 October 2010
Severance said:

Can you explain to me how Used game sales is any different than pirating?

one gives the money to the previous owner / the guy at the store.

the second is not give money at all.

both lead to the publisher / developer not getting anything in return , and to whoever replied to me, i clearly said "support your favourite developer" , its not a charity , its not serving , its not blindly giving money away, its SUPPORTING your FAVORITE developer, so that they make more games you enjoy.

I've already answered this in my other posts in this thread.  What do you think the previous owner with do with the money he receives?  It's pretty likely that money will be put towards another video game purchase.  Pirating doesn't give the previous owner any money.

Publishers/developers are in for a rude awakening if they think eliminating or reducing used game sales will result in any additional revenue for them.  They will just be selling fewer games.



Severance on 26 October 2010
whatever said:
Severance said:

Can you explain to me how Used game sales is any different than pirating?

one gives the money to the previous owner / the guy at the store.

the second is not give money at all.

both lead to the publisher / developer not getting anything in return , and to whoever replied to me, i clearly said "support your favourite developer" , its not a charity , its not serving , its not blindly giving money away, its SUPPORTING your FAVORITE developer, so that they make more games you enjoy.

I've already answered this in my other posts in this thread.  What do you think the previous owner with do with the money he receives?  It's pretty likely that money will be put towards another video game purchase.  Pirating doesn't give the previous owner any money.

Publishers/developers are in for a rude awakening if they think eliminating or reducing used game sales will result in any additional revenue for them.  They will just be selling fewer games.


where do you think pirates get the source file of the game from ?

yessir from a game copy, thats still the same as a used copy.



I live for the burn...and the sting of pleasure...
I live for the sword, the steel, and the gun...

- Wasteland - The Mission.

SecondWar on 26 October 2010
Calmador said:

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? 

Read up to the third sentence and already think youve missed a vital point. Ive previously traded in Halo 3, and Gears of War 2. Did those games suck? Like hell they didnt. Halo is my favourite console series and Gears has one of the most interesting campaign plots Ive played. I traded them in because theyd got old and Id moved on to other things (ie Halo Reach, Assassins Creed II and Mass Effect 2)

I really cant see the problem with this, I think its a great idea to help games companies make extra money when the market is in decline. Besides, by the time I bought Mass Effect 2, it was only £15 and as it was new I got the content free. I bought Alan Wake used meaning I didnt have the code, but Id loved the story so paid up to carry on.

The solution is simple, if you dont want to pay the extra cash, dont and stop whinging.



Barozi on 26 October 2010
Calmador said:
Barozi said:
Calmador said:
Barozi said:

I fully support the idea of the online pass. I even think $10 is too low, but at least a good start.

And people who say the game aren't worth to be played and therefore are being sold to others, just read more reviews if you're unsure, play the demo or play it at a friends house BEFORE you make the decision to buy it.


It's not the developers fault that you fell for buying a game that you don't like, it's YOUR own fault.
And everyone who is defending their own mistakes by blaming others (devs) just cannot admit that they were wrong from the start and try make themselves feel better by doing that.

Gamers who don't support this are simply selfish.
Bitching about paying $5 more for a new game and supporting the industry.
We are all gamers. We should unite, so that we are guaranteed to get games in the futures, but the ones who only buy used are the ones who put the knife in our back.

Also consider the following, because I'm sure that many of these people are also the ones who think that gaming is too expensive. It's total BULLSHIT. Gaming is as "expensive" as always and furthermore it's even the cheapest form of digital entertainment. You're getting more for your bucks than going to cinema, buying DVD/Blu-Rays and buying music.
We are very lucky that the prices are how they are, because many of them should (not that I hope they would) actually be much higher.

Reading reviews... playing the demo... even playing it at a friends house.. it doesn't matter... people will still turn around think a game is not for them.

People that pre-order? Have you considered them? They do read reviews and previews but that'll never be enough... not even a demo is enough sometimes... the moment of truth is when the gamer plays the game in full. It's not selfish... it's just something natural that happens... people buy something thinking they'll like it but sometimes they don't and put it in the used market! So yes to those people it IS the developers fault... they were not satisfied[period]

The ones who buy used... as a explained before purify the industry... did you even read my original post?


You simply need to be stupid if you pre-order a game which you don't know if you'll like it or not.

Again extremely poor excuse to blame others for own mistakes. Even better learn from these mistakes and don't make them over and over again.

No... you simply have to not like the full game that you pre-order based on reviews... previews that show 1/100 of a game. Sure you get some coverage but IT DOESN'T ALWAYS WORK. That little coverage will NEVER be enough to ensure a gamer he/she is getting a game he/she wants to keep. Wow.. how dense do you have to be to not understand that.

Amazing... you don't even deserve a say based on how little you understand.

ah a good sign for me. People are always getting agressive when they don't have anymore good reasons.

You're losing this conversation :)

 

As for my reply just read what I posted earlier or read KylieDog's post.
The possibilities of judging a game without buying it are endless.

The problem is that you simply don't know what you like, which is again not even close the fault of the developer.

 

@Mr Khan

There are publisher who use dedicated servers on consoles and even if not, why are people paying $15 each month for MMORPGs, but not for shooters ?
Even though they also account for certain expenses and keep you from buying new games, simply because you don't need them cause you're still playing the same old MW2 (or Halo Reach) every day for months.