Jimquisition: Online Passes Are Bad For Everybody

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

dystopiaINC:

Stall:
The problem with believing that used games are a good way for gamers to test new IPs is that publishers require the sales of the new IP to judge if a sequel is worth it. If everyone buys a new IP used, then it simply isn't going to get a sequel because the publisher doesn't consider it worthwhile since the first game just didn't sell. If someone made a great new IP, but most people bought it used because they are afraid of that fact, then there wouldn't be a chance to BUY a sequel because a sequel wouldn't happen.

EDIT: Also, why do people expect companies to trust them? Do you know the first rule of fucking business? It's that you NEVER trust your customer. When you give a customer trust, even just a little bit, then they will find ways to exploit that trust and fuck you over because of it. Not trusting your customer is good business. It isn't being a dick or being rude. Stop being entitled and expect publishers to trust you, because it isn't going to happen.

I hate the entitlement of so many gamers nowadays.

never trust your customers

Never trust the people giving you money? It's a shame your customers trust you enough to pay you.

This is why customer service is non existent these days, the old slogan "the customer is always right" has been changed to "the customer is a thief and a liar".

Paragon Fury:
Online passes are good for games.

They fight used sales

Easily the most idiotic thing I've heard all year.

Fighting used sales is a CRIMINAL act. When you buy a game you are buying a license to that game, once you are done with it and have deleted the content, it is your RIGHT BY LAW to RESELL it.

More and more publishers are trying to snake their way into making games a "lease" arrangement, which is pure bullshit and something we as consumers must fight with every fiber of our being.

i still remember the brief period when i could trade in pc games but those days are long gone, the simple fact is the used game business will eventually be shut down for consoles as well.

the big companies dont particularly care about their customers they want to make sure they get every single possible cent out of you as fast and as long as they can.

i dont see any difference between a person selling a movie on a dvd and a single player game. i do see a difference if the person has to access servers hosted by the publisher to play multiplayer, in that case i can see an extra charge for a pass.

to me a single player game is a product and the multiplayer access to a server is an aditional service

Well in the grand scheme, day1dlc is a secondary problem to DRM. DRM literally only affects paying customers, you can pirate copies with drm taken out as easy as you used to before it, so it is 0 percent effective and only hurts legitiment customers.

It's funny really. I buy used games and i never buy online passes because they aren't value for money. I play on my 360 every day but i don't have gold which isn't value for money. I finish most games in a day so i don't buy them new...because they aren't value for money. I don't buy DLC because it isn't value for money.

I'm spotting a trend here...

NinjaDeathSlap:

JustaGigolo:

You know what hurts the game industry even more than online passes? Cheap people who wait a month after a game comes out just to get a used copy of a game, thus giving all their money to Gamestop, and not the creators or publishers of the game.

"Oh no, I can't play this shitty multiplayer without putting in a code. Oh woe is me."

Yes, because everyone can easily afford to pay for every game they want new before the price drop or before used ones start appearing.

Whoops, sorry, I didn't mean yes. I meant no, no way, and if you can then you are very much in the minority and you shouldn't be blaming others for having less money than you.

Thanks for that, If I had retaliated without taking a breather and reading a reasoned response, I would likely have gone from "clean record" to "red" on my health meter in thirty seconds flat.

JustaGigolo:

You know what hurts the game industry even more than online passes? Cheap people who wait a month after a game comes out just to get a used copy of a game, thus giving all their money to Gamestop, and not the creators or publishers of the game.

"Oh no, I can't play this shitty multiplayer without putting in a code. Oh woe is me."

Not everyone has money coming out of their asses, I live in a third world country. With current exchange rates (which are very good for my country at the moment), a game like Dead space 2 can cost $80... and some special edition crap things around $90-100... and this is a country where the GDP per Capita per year is under $15 000... way under that actually.
And often your online pass will be rendered useless after a while as the servers empty out anyway!

And it is capitalism... if the publishers can't compete in it, they should change their idiocy and learn to make do the way normal companies do, the games industry is the only one with this shit, they can't change the rules of the capitalistic market to suit themselves...

Just stop with on line passes, before you know it, you will need them to play the single player modes too

I think one of the biggest problems is, to the customer, they seem to be saying used sales, rentals and the like are as bad as piracy. We can see straight thru that shit and it lessens the value of any genuine complaints the industry may have.

They may as well tell us DRM is for our own good.

Steam has the idea, gets the majority of sales at full price, then for those who aren't crazy about the title, knocks it out 50% off 3-6 months later. Then a year later it's 75% off for those curious about and willing to throw $5-10 bucks at it to try it. With each step down in cost, there's an exponential boost in sales numbers too.

I also still maintain that they need to stop feeling like every game needs to cost $60 to but, and $20 million and 3 years to make. Many of us would be happier buying $30 games with lesser graphics, and unknown but quality voice actors, and the like.

nikki191:

to me a single player game is a product and the multiplayer access to a server is an aditional service

One copy of the game per online player. There is no need to charge for multiplayer more than once (when the game is bought new) because there will never be more than one player per disc and in fact many people who buy new and pay for multiplayer will never go online with their copy.

There are many solutions from a publishers side.
Teired pricing.
Digital distribution.
Gamers that people dont trade in after the first day.
Free dlc after launch. (See Valve)
Best solution: STFU and stop looking at used sales with stars in your eyes. No this is not a "unique industry" Used record and CD stores have existed popularly for 50+ years.

Stall:

I hate the entitlement of so many gamers nowadays.

I hate the way gamers over/mis-use the word "entitlement" now-a-days.
I think Jim's right, if you just bought a new game for $60 you are "entitled" to a finished product that you shouldn't have to download extra crap for: provided you're not modding.

Besides. I'd rather be entitled than be a sucker.

Raika:
Jim Sterling is the greatest man who ever lived, and an inspiration to us all. I kind of want him to impregnate me.

In all seriousness, Jim voices his opinions very well, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. I've declined to purchase games in the past or even rent them due to this "online pass" system to which I strongly object, and I'd like to point out to the "Call of Duty is ruining gaming" hordes that nobody is making you buy their DLC. I know that kind of came out of nowhere, but it's something to think about. People love to bitch about Activision, but they aren't doing this shit.

I've done the same.
I'm also liking this guy. I don't know if I want to bare his children but his perspective is a refreshing contrast to the usual game journalism hype machine.

But I think he touched on a very important point here that relates not just to Online Pass, but also the over-infusion/pricing of dlc, the values gamestop offers, monthly fees, releasing broken beta copies & patching them later, and every other nickel & dime money making scheme that's been thrown at us this generation:
Gamers (on the whole)need to grow a spine and start standing up to these practices that only serve to make gaming more complicated and expensive for all of us. If they remain complacent and accepting of all this bullshit, we're going to see a future of $60 demos with $120 of dlc for the complete game. Maybe the stereotype is true: gamers are mostly nerds who are used to being bullied & intimidated out of their money and are incapable of standing up for themselves.
I don't really want to believe it because I always thought I was a bit of a nerd but shit, I'm not a pushover.

It's too bad because at this point in my life I can actually afford to buy new games but I never buy a new game with one of these schemes. Then again, if used games were valued like this when I was making minimum wage, I probably wouldn't be buying any games now except for maybe the occasional PC release: it's not like I have no other interests.

Azuaron:

Don't buy the game/s?

Defeats the purpose of enjoying the hobby in the first place

Buy 1/3 the games you normally would?

Mathematically impossible this year, I've only bought two games so far. You can't buy 1/3 of 2 games.

Wait until the game's older and cheaper, but still buy it new?

...naaah. Not an option either. Too likely to get it spoiled in the mean time.

Make more money?

You say this like I've got a money press in my closet or something. Get real.

Start a pool with your friends/family and buy games together, then share them.

Considering I'm the only one who plays games in my family this would just be mooching off my parents, and I'm far too old to be doing that.

Spend less money in other aspects of your life

...I need fuel to get money for anything. I need food to eat. And this...

(for instance, my mom's recently gotten into extreme couponing, and she now pays $50/month on groceries for two people.

This is the dullest thing life has to offer. Not to mention it annoys EVERYONE ELSE! Cashiers, other shoppers in line, hell I'm embarrassed and annoyed when someone I'm shopping with breaks them out.

You have many, many choices, you are simply choosing the easiest one for you at this moment. Don't pretend otherwise.

I'm not 'pretending' anything. I'm just minimizing the costs of my hobbies. I do the same thing with my RC habit, I buy used stuff because I can't afford new stuff...I guess by your logic I shouldn't buy used cars, either. Or used computer parts. Or used power tools. Why buy those things used as well when I could just wait for a sale, or pool and share it, or just make more money, and buy new ones instead?

I applaud you for originality, yet I facepalm at the impracticality of your points. They just don't work.

MeTheMe:
Once again, this shows us the need to vote with our wallets. If a game with a new pass was released that was annoying and intrusive, and no one bought it because of that, don't you think they'd rethink what they'd just done? Same for intrusive DRM. Yeah, I may not get to play the game I want to for a while, but I try to send a message.

YAAY, I DON'T HAVE TO SAY SHIT ABOUT THE SUBJECT!

See, for some reason, when I asked to have a better definition of a video, HE SLAPS HIS WHOLE ARGUMENT ON THE TITLE.... Maybe hes listening to me, eat pizza, Jim, enjoy that pizza.

Track 09 - Court Jesters off of FFIX for anyone who is looking.

OT: I remember when you could buy a game and the game was bought good times.

I don't get up in arms over used games. I buy both, depending on my financial situation. I do believe though that used games have an impact both ways on the publisher. One way is that a customer who is unfamiliar with said publisher may not be 100% on their products and most likely will not want to pay $60 for a new product. Therefore they buy the used game and test it out. Now yes I understand some people are either cheap or just can't afford the game new and really really really want to play that game anyway.
The other way is a customer who never played the game at its inception and maybe a year or two down the road picks said game up at a pawn shop for $5. At that point the game isn't really the focus of the publisher anymore and thus isn't subject to financial loss on said publisher as the market has moved on in scope to the newer products being produced. Or that publisher no longer exists due to cutbacks, financial mismanagement or other factors.
But I still think that there should be some kickbacks from used game peddlers (i.e. Gamestop) to the publishers directly or indirectly to help offset the huge financial gains they make off the used copies they have sold. Or not. Economics and capitalism is morally gray anyway and everyone makes money off of someone else's hard work at some point without that person seeing a dime...
What a world we live in!
But then, we could all be like the russian dude who made no money off of the NES hit Tetris and who wasn't even able to own his kickback NES and copy of his game because of the socialist country he lived in reaping the benefits.

Lykosia:

NinjaDeathSlap:

JustaGigolo:
You know what hurts the game industry even more than online passes? Cheap people who wait a month after a game comes out just to get a used copy of a game, thus giving all their money to Gamestop, and not the creators or publishers of the game.

"Oh no, I can't play this shitty multiplayer without putting in a code. Oh woe is me."

Yes, because everyone can easily afford to pay for every game they want new before the price drop or before used ones start appearing.

Whoops, sorry, I didn't mean yes. I meant no, no way, and if you can then you are very much in the minority and you shouldn't be blaming others for having less money than you.

Gaming is a luxury hobby. If you can't afford it, then you need to find yourself other hobby. It's quite easy to avoid buying used games and still save a ton of money. There are plenty of free to play games and plenty of deals. Especially Steam and other DD services have tons of good deals all the time. And of course retailers have their own bargain bins. You don't always have to buy games at day one.

I cannot figure out why people like you are against used games... They do not harm the industry, they help the consumer, do you not want other people to be happy? Do you get a kick out of knowing that you can buy more than other people?

A: Another hobby? The initial invest in gaming alone makes "another hobby" an expensive endeavour. And few hobbies are quite so involved as gaming can be, gaming can leading to the development of new careers and whole new micro-industries.
People also cannot just choose to not want something, you go into a hobby because you enjoy it. People are not robots Karl...

B: Does not harm the industry, someone who can't afford new, is not taking a precious dev's sale away by buying used... they are likely saving money to buy a new game some time[1].

C: In my country, everything in the bargain bins is Shit, or the mark-down is so small that it makes no difference anyway, and this is the same problem in many places. And the BB doesn't always have what you want.

D: Some people have capped internet, the money issue means that those people will likely be the same ones who can't afford new. So DD is out the window for them... that leaves only used. Again, they wouldn't be able to afford it directly no matter what, and the used industry gives them a chance to save enough to buy new at some point.

[1] It is nice to buy new, and people do it where they can, and people do want new releases from time to time

Lykosia:

NinjaDeathSlap:

JustaGigolo:
You know what hurts the game industry even more than online passes? Cheap people who wait a month after a game comes out just to get a used copy of a game, thus giving all their money to Gamestop, and not the creators or publishers of the game.

"Oh no, I can't play this shitty multiplayer without putting in a code. Oh woe is me."

Yes, because everyone can easily afford to pay for every game they want new before the price drop or before used ones start appearing.

Whoops, sorry, I didn't mean yes. I meant no, no way, and if you can then you are very much in the minority and you shouldn't be blaming others for having less money than you.

Gaming is a luxury hobby. If you can't afford it, then you need to find yourself other hobby. It's quite easy to avoid buying used games and still save a ton of money. There are plenty of free to play games and plenty of deals. Especially Steam and other DD services have tons of good deals all the time. And of course retailers have their own bargain bins. You don't always have to buy games at day one.

Fair point. But since the industry seems to have a rising budget problem, and needs to sell more games then ever just to stay afloat, limiting you're audience to "luxury" level is a sure-fire way to tank. If they want to sell more copies, they need to reduce the price of games so more people can buy it, or reduce their budgets, or both.

Simply sitting there going "Well if they can't afford it, they should just do without" does nothing. People want to buy at lower prices, and Gamestop and other used vendors are the only ones that allow them to do that. And most people HATE Gamestop, and would love to buy games elsewhere, but can't, because they're too expensive.

Ignoring such large market is just stupid.

Jim is right about this, But in the wrong way. Online passes are pointless. No game, I don't care how good, should focus on their online gaming. But the publishers should still give something to a new game buyers. Face it. You get a game 50 dollar used, the publishers get nothing out of that. Chip in the extra 10 dollars and you get an unused disk, as well as a bonces.

Publishers should do what EA did with Dragon Age Organs. You buy the game new, you get codes for a DLC quest and (sadly) one of a kind armor, But used game buyers can go out and spent the 12 or 14 dollars on the DLC quest, if they wanted it. The quest doesn't take away form the over all game, I later brought the quest, because I liked the game, so I still payed the publishers for something of a game I brought used.

Publishers should give new game buyers a reword, but nothing that would restrict use game buyers. It's an easy fix. Like some extra weapons or armor (for offline), so on so forth, but all of which can be bought by a used game buyer. Publishers still get money get money for new games, and used game buyers who like the game, have something day of release they can go and buy if they really like the game.

EA (most likely Dice's work) did this with BattleField Bad Company 2. If you pre-ordered it you got to play Squid rush mode, for two or so weeks before everyone else, but they still gave it to everyone, so it was still a fair to anyone who (like me) didn't pre-order.

Irridium:

Lykosia:

NinjaDeathSlap:

Yes, because everyone can easily afford to pay for every game they want new before the price drop or before used ones start appearing.

Whoops, sorry, I didn't mean yes. I meant no, no way, and if you can then you are very much in the minority and you shouldn't be blaming others for having less money than you.

Gaming is a luxury hobby. If you can't afford it, then you need to find yourself other hobby. It's quite easy to avoid buying used games and still save a ton of money. There are plenty of free to play games and plenty of deals. Especially Steam and other DD services have tons of good deals all the time. And of course retailers have their own bargain bins. You don't always have to buy games at day one.

Fair point. But since the industry seems to have a rising budget problem, and needs to sell more games then ever just to stay afloat, limiting you're audience to "luxury" level is a sure-fire way to tank. If they want to sell more copies, they need to reduce the price of games so more people can buy it, or reduce their budgets, or both.

Simply sitting there going "Well if they can't afford it, they should just do without" does nothing. People want to buy at lower prices, and Gamestop and other used vendors are the only ones that allow them to do that. And most people HATE Gamestop, and would love to buy games elsewhere, but can't, because they're too expensive.

Ignoring such large market is just stupid.

LOL, did he just tell you to stop gaming because you're too poor? WOW

Im with you. If the publisher is not willing to abaondon its arbitray 60 price model then sorry guys, I might just go somewhere cheaper...they have options, they chose "fuck with the customers" which is a stupid option.

teh_gunslinger:

BrotherRool:

In general, your false points are made even worse by the fact that used games are now being sold within the first week of a game being released. Used games take a serious amount of money from devs, and considering online actually creates an expense, used games are costing money to the people who made them, even before you begin trying to work out whether sales they would have made otherwise are greater than the sales will may potential arise as a result of a sequel down the line.

Perhaps the publishers should think a bit about why the games are being sold on after so short a while then? I propose that they themselves has created a market of disposable games by over saturation and shovelling a million titles out. Add to that the blatant disrespect for their own customers and it's a small wonder.

Furthermore, if P2P servers cost them very little I imagine. It's not like they are hosting a lot of it, and Microsoft makes sure they get paid as well.

I think you were making fair points, but maybe you got a little carried away with this one. I love the games I play, (except frickin' Mass Effect!! but that's another story) and I really really wouldn't change them. What's more my friends absolutely love the games they play. I know it's pretty cwl these days to knock and feel a bit smug about Call of Duty and the like, but the people I know who buy these games, love them to pieces and put far more time into them than I put into any more of my games.

It's a money cash-cow business model, but millions of people genuinely like these games, there is stuff to knock, but maybe we've got to step back a bit and say, well if these people are having fun, then maybe they are the right game for them and it's good that games are made that please so many people. What else are we meant to say? Stop having fun guys!

And ultimately most games have a limited lifespan, games in general have a far bigger time offering than almost any other media and complaining about disposable games can come off as a bit silly when media in general is made to be disposable. How many movies are made to be watched for hours straight? How many cinemas sell day tickets? I love books and I re-read them constantly, but I know that they aren't designed for that, most stories are designed to be disposable.

I mean think about Portal, the game is short as heck, has no gameplay value once you've seen the puzzles sold once and I personally have found even the jokes become a little grating on a second time through. But should that game have been made? Heck yeah.

The few games that aren't disposable, Minecraft, Little Big Planet, Sims, WoW, FiFA and CoD (Yes FiFA CoD, exactly the sort of game I think you were referring too, but the truth is far more hours go into those games and they have a far longer lifespan than more elitest games. Heck some of my friends were playing Modern Warfare one day in day out only last year) are either a one-off hard to repeat with creating exactly the same thing sort of experience (Sims and Minecraft) or rely on the customers to tirelessly work towards creating worth (Little Big Planet or Minecraft), or rely on the customers paying a full team of devs to constantly work on new content and even that looks like it might be hitting hard times. Else it relies on an online community. And there are only so many hours in a day and people playing games in them.

The real reason for first week used games? 1. Sometimes people buy a game and it's not their thing. It happens you know, particularly if you're checking out what everyone else is interested in. 2. The companies work through the teeth to try and get you to sell them your game week one so they can make a crudload of cash of your purchase. 3. Some games just have a limited lifespan. One Day and In the Company of Yourself are absolutely class games that I show to everyone, but they're only an hour or so long. Good things have a good ending and don't outlast their welcome. Of Mice and Men, A Catcher in the Rye are really short books. Doesn't stop them from being great.

I'd also guess that servers cost a lot more than you think, it's about tech support and maintenance and personnel. Companies undertake an obligation to give you continuous and good service. I'm don't know details but EA aren't stupid to risk bad publicity on a small thing. Heck even little Webcomics or my friends Minecraft server take a lot of work to keep up in the air.

brandon237:
Not everyone has money coming out of their asses, I live in a third world country. With current exchange rates (which are very good for my country at the moment), a game like Dead space 2 can cost $80... and some special edition crap things around $90-100... and this is a country where the GDP per Capita per year is under $15 000... way under that actually.
And often your online pass will be rendered useless after a while as the servers empty out anyway!

And it is capitalism... if the publishers can't compete in it, they should change their idiocy and learn to make do the way normal companies do, the games industry is the only one with this shit, they can't change the rules of the capitalistic market to suit themselves...

Man, I wish I had some made up sob story so I could use it as an excuse to help kill the medium I enjoy.

Last time I checked, most third world people didn't have internet access and video game consoles. Unless they were the son of a blood thirsty dictator or something.

bombadilillo:

Irridium:

Lykosia:

Gaming is a luxury hobby. If you can't afford it, then you need to find yourself other hobby. It's quite easy to avoid buying used games and still save a ton of money. There are plenty of free to play games and plenty of deals. Especially Steam and other DD services have tons of good deals all the time. And of course retailers have their own bargain bins. You don't always have to buy games at day one.

Fair point. But since the industry seems to have a rising budget problem, and needs to sell more games then ever just to stay afloat, limiting you're audience to "luxury" level is a sure-fire way to tank. If they want to sell more copies, they need to reduce the price of games so more people can buy it, or reduce their budgets, or both.

Simply sitting there going "Well if they can't afford it, they should just do without" does nothing. People want to buy at lower prices, and Gamestop and other used vendors are the only ones that allow them to do that. And most people HATE Gamestop, and would love to buy games elsewhere, but can't, because they're too expensive.

Ignoring such large market is just stupid.

LOL, did he just tell you to stop gaming because you're too poor? WOW

Im with you. If the publisher is not willing to abaondon its arbitray 60 price model then sorry guys, I might just go somewhere cheaper...they have options, they chose "fuck with the customers" which is a stupid option.

Me specifically? No, just in general. I personally can only afford one or two game a year at full price. I'd love to buy more, and when Steam has it's sale I buy what I want, but normally I just can't.

I want to buy more games, but their raising of prices won't let me. And that makes me sad :(

Irridium:
Me specifically? No, just in general. I personally can only afford one or two game a year at full price. I'd love to buy more, and when Steam has it's sale I buy what I want, but normally I just can't.

I want to buy more games, but their raising of prices won't let me. And that makes me sad :(

Gamefly my friend. Or perhaps now Qwickster? Is that right? Whatever, I am waiting to see their priced.

Gamefly is even moving into renting PC games. YOU HEARD THAT RIGHT! Anyway its cheaper and you dont get burned paying 60$ for shit games that you would just sell to gamestop and then publishers whine about it.

Rednog:
Meh as a PC gamer this really doesn't affect me at all, we don't get used games, and we've been imputing codes in order to play our games for how long?

Still, we have to do it on a friggin controller! You have not felt frustration until you have done a 20 digit code on a ps3/xbox controller! Just one more reason for me trying to get into PC gaming.

You know. Normally I agree with Jim, but this time I really dont...

The idea of people wanting to test a new IP being driven off by online pass is sorta...wha? How is that bad? They can try out the game, play through all of its single player content without ever bothering with a CD key...

And ok, so console players are having to deal with the same stuff PC players have been sense...when? forever? Oh wait...they arent...they just have to put in a code once...when they want to go online...the first time.

And ok, so two games come out on the same day, you want to play both, you can afford one...Just buy one? Decide which you want more. I have to do this often as a PC gamer, console players can just suck it up. Because there are two games you want does not mean you are entitled to both. Hell, there are a number of cars/electronics/what have you that I want but I cant afford them all, but you dont see me going to related message boards complaining about it.

But overall, its the game devs or publishers servers, you want to play on em you pay em.

bombadilillo:

Irridium:
Me specifically? No, just in general. I personally can only afford one or two game a year at full price. I'd love to buy more, and when Steam has it's sale I buy what I want, but normally I just can't.

I want to buy more games, but their raising of prices won't let me. And that makes me sad :(

Gamefly my friend. Or perhaps now Qwickster? Is that right? Whatever, I am waiting to see their priced.

Gamefly is even moving into renting PC games. YOU HEARD THAT RIGHT! Anyway its cheaper and you dont get burned paying 60$ for shit games that you would just sell to gamestop and then publishers whine about it.

Tried Gamefly, didn't go over too well with me. Really long wait times mainly. Hopefully Qwickster will be better though.

This was a good video as usual, I disagree with some of the points but it was a well made argument.

My main point of contention is most people who sell games for credit don't use that money to buy new games, they use that money to buy used games. And gamestop is set up to try as hard as possible to prevent any money from ever leaving their system. For example they will give you $15 for a game, but if you use that money to buy used games they will give you $25. At that point most gamers would see spending that money on used games as a better deal. Also they have things like 2 for 3 deals on used games so someone could buy a new game for $60 or buy 3 used games for the same price. The employees even act like dicks to customers who buy new over used saying stuff like "don't you like saving money?", which btw was the statement which made me never spend another dime there again as of maybe 10 years ago.

Its in gamestop's best interest to pimp used games as much as possible because that is where the profit is. Even if they sell 3 used games for $60 that is still a much higher profit margin than selling one new game for 60. Gamestop is fundamentally a parasite on the industry and the publishers are legitimately pissed about their business practices. If I were in the publishers shoes I would simply refuse to deal with Gamestop and promote in other outlets like like Best Buy or Amazon that much more "legitimate" retailers.

JustaGigolo:

NinjaDeathSlap:

JustaGigolo:
You know what hurts the game industry even more than online passes? Cheap people who wait a month after a game comes out just to get a used copy of a game, thus giving all their money to Gamestop, and not the creators or publishers of the game.

"Oh no, I can't play this shitty multiplayer without putting in a code. Oh woe is me."

Yes, because everyone can easily afford to pay for every game they want new before the price drop or before used ones start appearing.

Whoops, sorry, I didn't mean yes. I meant no, no way, and if you can then you are very much in the minority and you shouldn't be blaming others for having less money than you.

And people wonder where the self entitled, gamer brat stereotype came from.

Fucking economics, how does it work?

So why doesn't any other entertainment industry rag on second hand sales?

Irridium:

bombadilillo:

Irridium:
Me specifically? No, just in general. I personally can only afford one or two game a year at full price. I'd love to buy more, and when Steam has it's sale I buy what I want, but normally I just can't.

I want to buy more games, but their raising of prices won't let me. And that makes me sad :(

Gamefly my friend. Or perhaps now Qwickster? Is that right? Whatever, I am waiting to see their priced.

Gamefly is even moving into renting PC games. YOU HEARD THAT RIGHT! Anyway its cheaper and you dont get burned paying 60$ for shit games that you would just sell to gamestop and then publishers whine about it.

Tried Gamefly, didn't go over too well with me. Really long wait times mainly. Hopefully Qwickster will be better though.

When did you use them? Because I used it when they first came out and it sucked. Got back on it a year or so ago and its a 2 day turn around (netflix being 1 day) So it got better. I have high hopes for Qwickster.

The same concept put in place by "used games" stores such as Gamestop -- The free trading and distribution of entertainment -- has been in place since time immemorial. Libraries for books and museums for art have existed for centuries. Now we have record stores for records/cassettes/CDs/DVDs, radio for songs, video rental for movies, TV for, well, TV shows. And now you can get most of the above on the internet, either for free or at a nominal cost (netflix/pandora/hulu/steam). And yet for some reason only the games industry protests this kind of distribution.

An entertainment distribution center -- library/movie rentals/records/Gamestop -- only increases the value of the media because they distribute it to people far past retail price, at no additional tangible cost to the developer. Not everyone is going to go to a movie at nine dollars a pop, and not everyone is going to buy that book new at twenty-nine dollars. By making entertainment accessible to the layman on a budget, you are increasing your audience and thus increasing the amount of people that may spend money on said entertainment.

By the way... while the video did make some valid points, all those F-bombs near the end wasted about as much time as inputting an Xbox gamer code would. Just saying.

Jim Sterling:
Online Passes Are Bad For Everybody

In the first part of a series of Jimquisitions on used games and their place in the industry, Sterling tackles the most recent tactic used by publishers in the fight against traded products -- online passes -- and examines why they're bad for everybody. Be you a publisher, a used gamer, or a NEW one, online passes are bad news, and Jim Sterling will force the truth down your little lie gullet.

Watch Video

...you know what? Nevermind. I was about to watch, and then I noticed that you're speaking in the third person. Nothing good can come from the opinion of someone who refers to himself in the third person.

I don't know if it's just me, but Jim seems really upset about this, and it seems like such a minor, inconsequential issue in the big picture of life. It's like, here's Jim over here getting REALLY REALLY mad about the issue of being forced to input a code before he can play a video game, and somewhere on the other side of the world, somebody is starving to death. This episode unintentionally made me realize how good we actually have it here in the the 1st world.

FelixG:
You know. Normally I agree with Jim, but this time I really dont...

The idea of people wanting to test a new IP being driven off by online pass is sorta...wha? How is that bad? They can try out the game, play through all of its single player content without ever bothering with a CD key...

And ok, so console players are having to deal with the same stuff PC players have been sense...when? forever? Oh wait...they arent...they just have to put in a code once...when they want to go online...the first time.

And ok, so two games come out on the same day, you want to play both, you can afford one...Just buy one? Decide which you want more. I have to do this often as a PC gamer, console players can just suck it up. Because there are two games you want does not mean you are entitled to both. Hell, there are a number of cars/electronics/what have you that I want but I cant afford them all, but you dont see me going to related message boards complaining about it.

But overall, its the game devs or publishers servers, you want to play on em you pay em.

If someone bought a game and didnt think it was worth keeping so I get it for cheaper. How is that bad?

Saying installing on PC is a shitty proccess so its ok for installing on a console to go from easy to shitty. That is not a good arguement.

You missed the point on the buy 2 games. He said used game credit LETS YOU BUY 2. Which means THE MONEY IS GOING INTO THE INDUSTRY.

Its not just multiplayer, though thats popular now. Dragon age had missing characters, other simgle player content in other games. Its not "Their servers" thats an excuse.

yeah, it always bothers me when consumers champion the publishers like they owe the publishers something. You don't. As a consumer, it's your duty to get the best deal you can, and each person does have to make a decision about how much they value a new game over a used game, and come to that conclusion themselves, but it doesn't make anyone else wrong if they value it differently. To me, the "newness" of a new game is worth about 7-8 dollars. If I can get a new copy for 5 dollars more, I'll buy it new, but that newness value is different for others. Some value it higher, so they'll buy used games less often, some have no value to the "newness" of a game, and will exclusively buy used games.

Sure, being a wanker and just screaming in rage that you have to pay money for something is annoying, but if there are actual reasons why this is a bad idea, then let's hear them and fix them.

I agree entirely with Jim on this issue and probably used games in general - gamers don't want to have to buy used games, but it's a practical thing - if it wasn't for used games, I probably wouldn't be able to buy as many games, but I also buy a lot of new games, the ones that I MUST have, like Fallout 3, Oblivion, Mass Effect 1/2, and come November, I'll be getting Skyrim, and in january, Mass Effect 3, and I'll be buying them new.

They're big purchases though and I can't just make them willy nilly

Online passes are giant "fuck yous" from Publishers that segment online populations, ruin resale value, and completely miss the mark on making money from new players.

1. Never charge extra for a percieved "essential" part of the game experience.
2. Offer players the opportunity to buy accessories or extra, non-essential content (DLC)
3. Make these microtransactions easy and addictive. And make them worth it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here