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

KungKras on 27 October 2010

To add to this discussion again.

What I think is starting to go very very wrong in this industry is that games are being viewed less and less for what they are: OBJECTS!

I don't view my old Megadrive or N64 carts as licenses or as platforms or whatever, they are solid, non-abstract OBJECTS, and they are mine, and I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with them including selling them. Can you imagine how ridiculous it would have been if Nintendo started complaining about the used games market in the N64 days and demanded to get a cut of the profit is someone sold an N64 cart? It would be ridiculous.

Games are being viewed by the industry and by forum people less and less as objects, but that's exacly what they are! My copy of Super Mario World should be viewed the same way as my copy of Halo 3 or my copy of Warcraft 3.

If games started to be viewed as something other than objects, then there is a huge chance that I would stop gaming. I already feel severely burned by what Blizzard did with Starcraft 2, now my collectors edition has no value anymore because I used the game code, and I never even used my CD, I just downloaded the game. It's not in my hands like my console games, it feels like I'm just burrowing it from Blizzard for a fee. I think lots of people feel the same, maybe not on forums, but I bet that if you take control away from customers, people will start to get dissapointed and disinterrested.

Another thing. People have still not explained how they think video games are a separate case from movies, or heck, any other type of product. If you support online passes, then are you also for movie companies charging a fee for used movies? Or even furniture companies charging a fee for buying used furniture?

If you can't explain why gaming should be special, then you are automatically for comapnies charging for any other type of used product period!



I LOVE ICELAND!

Around the Network
loves2splooge on 27 October 2010

EA's Online Pass thing is not really that bad. Used games are not that much cheaper than new games to begin with. And as for renters, they get 7 days of free online.

That all said, I think this is a baby step towards the industry moving towards a digital-only Steam-esque/PSPgo-esque model where gamers can't resell their games or rent them. If that happens, console gaming will turn into the dire state that is PC gaming. PC gaming right now is basically Blizzard, The Sims, Valve, MMOs, free to play games and casual games. Traditional PC gaming is dying out. PC gamers, at least the ones who pay for games, love to talk about how great Steam is. But in reality, Steam is only popular because of the frequent bargain prices. The bargain bin hurts the wallet of developers too. So should we ban the bargain bin too? Whereas on the console side of things, Activision can sell Call of Duty for $60 and get millions and millions of sales Day 1. PC gamers are cheap skates compared to console gamers. But I don't blame them. Because the PC gaming industry has basically said bend over and take it and theyre not taking it. Theyre saying 'fuck you' to $50-60 (yes some have the audacity to charge $60 for PC games) PC games that can't be resold. And they're waiting for those games to drop to like $5-20 on Steam before buying it.

The industry seems to have this belief that gamers are addicts who will have no problem spending more and more on their habit.. erm I mean hobby. The game industry has this sense of entitlement. That everyone of their $60 games deserves $60. When in reality the Steam business model has shown us that as you take away the ability to resell games, gamers become a lot more patient and pay less per game. At the end of the day, it balances out and the gaming industry doesn't get anymore revenue from gamers. A good game is a good game whether you get it Day 1 or you get it a year later and PC gamers seem to be a lot more aware of that than console gamers (who have been relying on GameStop trade-ins to make it feasible to always buy the latest shit). When you play a new release, you get more excited at first. But then eventually that wears off and then you realize that it's no different than a one year old game of similar quality.



Calmador on 29 October 2010
SpartenOmega117 said:

well the reason we are starting to have these online passes is because of you used game buyers. Just buy the brand new copy. It is usually only $5 more and you get that new fresh smell :)

Sure it is... because we have them right where we want them. We the gamers can sell our new games that sucked which we pre-ordered or bought at launch  at 60$ and it will be in the used game market. Like explained quite well in my OP... it is a fail on the developers part if a game is in the used game market this early in its launch... but no worries the used game market is there to save the day... a used game buy ... buys it, loves it and keeps it. Order has been restored.... the 60$ the new game buyer spent and went into the developers pockets is now well deserved. If the online pass happens... then that that same game that didn't please he new game buyer will be 65$, get it? So in a way... we are rewardng the developers for failing to please us. Get it?

 

Tuganuno said:

Y 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

I'm very sorry about my post being too long but I had a lot of nice points and could'nt leave them out. I encourage you to read my OP because it destroys your reply to me.

Please read it when you have the time.



All gaming systems, consoles/PC, have thier perks... why fight over preferences? I like Coke and you like Pepsi, that's it, let's not fight over which toy we like best cause that's what they are. Is someone's preference in a toy important or is the relationship between you and your neighbor more important? Answer is obvious, but THE most important thing is your relationship with God almighty. God Bless you in Jesus's name.

I can communicate without talking... I can send a loved one money without actually sending money... and I can commit theft without the product disappearing, the point of theft is the point of theft not one of it's possible symptoms which is the product dissappearing. The thief wants to gain something without paying for it, that's the point of theft, the thief doesn't have to care or anybody else has to care if the product dissappears. The product dissappearing is just a possible symptom of theft. Gifts are sacrfices, in order to give a gift, it has to be a genuine sacrfice/gift, meaning a copy of the game isn't still in your PC. Piracy is theft and/or being a culprit of theft.

Acevil on 29 October 2010
twesterm said:
Calmador said:

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 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. 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.

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.

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.

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. I still think my argument is strong on the basis that usually games sell the most at launch.

POWER TO THE PLAYER

Thank you for your time and

Smile

VVV

And for the record, I absolutely support the idea of online passes and free DLC to new buyers.

Is it sad, that I felt like reading your wall of text over the other person? The Badger humping is leg really sounded interesting. 



 

Calmador on 29 October 2010
Barozi said:
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.

Nevermind the reasonable points I made right?

I do know what I like... the problem is we don't know if we like a game until we play the whole thing. Your bias is unbelievable.

Also about MMORPG's .... um news flash... those games use extremely powerful servers and developers are constantly adding content to the game.

I'm not surprised you wonder about MMORPG'sbecause it would take someone as ignorant as you to think everything is the gamers fault and not the developers delivering what we want. Reality check... some games actually DO SUCK. (subjctively among individuals of course, just in case a smarty-pants reads this)

 

SecondWar 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? 

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.

Thats an excellent point (prop to you, and finally someone with a brain) but I relatively counter this great point in one of my last paragraphs in my OP

Basically I said, I've come to realize that my arguement is weak later on as games are cheaper (because of your point and because people like to buy games cheap to enjoy them fully, single player games especially, and then return them to the game store) but my argument is still strong on the basis that games sell most at launch and the first couple of months WHEN games are most expensive.

Again Props to you.

Also you should read the rest of my OP... they are stealing $ from us and power/influence and I made other points. Please read the whole OP and reply... I hope I change your mind.

 



All gaming systems, consoles/PC, have thier perks... why fight over preferences? I like Coke and you like Pepsi, that's it, let's not fight over which toy we like best cause that's what they are. Is someone's preference in a toy important or is the relationship between you and your neighbor more important? Answer is obvious, but THE most important thing is your relationship with God almighty. God Bless you in Jesus's name.

I can communicate without talking... I can send a loved one money without actually sending money... and I can commit theft without the product disappearing, the point of theft is the point of theft not one of it's possible symptoms which is the product dissappearing. The thief wants to gain something without paying for it, that's the point of theft, the thief doesn't have to care or anybody else has to care if the product dissappears. The product dissappearing is just a possible symptom of theft. Gifts are sacrfices, in order to give a gift, it has to be a genuine sacrfice/gift, meaning a copy of the game isn't still in your PC. Piracy is theft and/or being a culprit of theft.

Around the Network
Chairman-Mao on 01 November 2010
whatever said:
Chairman-Mao said:
whatever said:
Chairman-Mao said:

Used games are killing the industry. I support the online passes.

Hell I'd even go as far as a registration code for games that you only get if you buy a new copy (you can't buy the code at all) rendering used games completely useless even for single player.

That would be the dumbest thing they could do.  New games sales would plummet as people that use money they get from selling games would no longer be able to afford buying as many new games.

That's a good point, but I don't think it would matter that much. At Gamestop/EB games (and other retailers) you only save $5 on the used copy over buying new so having to pay the extra $5 won't mean much.

It depends on the game, but you can save a lot more by buying from ebay or craigslist than you can from gamestop.  I only buy used from gamestop if they have a promotion (like B2G1).

 

Yeah that's true, good point.