Jimquisition: Online Passes Are Bad For Everybody

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

Azuaron:

1. Get another job.

2. Mow lawns.

3. Become a courier.

4. Make stuff and sell it on Etsy.

5. Start an eBay store.

6. Start a website with something to do with RC stuff (I don't know anything about it, but I'm certain there's information/parts/services/stuff you could sell; there always is.)

7. Write a novel and self-publish on Amazon.

8. Learn web development and sell your services online.

9. Start a moving business.

10. Etc..

No, I don't want a point-by-point rebuttal of why you "can't" do these things. These are examples. There's always opportunities to make more money, especially if you're just looking for $60 to buy a game. A little creativity, and suddenly you're that guy selling cupcakes out of a van in New York City by the, well, van-load.

11. Sell your old games to massive used game market via Craigslist, Gamestop or any other outlet.

Oh wait, that should be banned by the UN Used Game Police.

CM156:

No I wouldn't. However, it isn't working for free if the game was sold the first time.

First. Sale. Doctrine. Look it up.

Thank you for pointing toward that particular piece of law. Indeed, there is no copyright infringement for selling a game, nor buying it used. Furthermore, you are allowed to do it. This however, does not guarantee access to a packaged service, when an item is bought second hand.

It is why no matter how 'new' a used item is, you can't have the original warranty on an item, or even an extended warranty, unless the manufacturer or retailer wishes to grant you the privilege of such.

The online sector of a game is a voluntary service. A game could just as easily be sold without it. A game can be split between single player and multiplayer, and sold separately. The 'extra' 10 dollars that Jim rails against, and that so many people are decrying, helps to maintain a voluntary service. The game studio could just as easily not offer it all.

When you look at a balance sheet, there is a certain level of cost dedicated to maintenance and upkeep of those servers, to pay the people that undertake that rather simple, yet arduous task. It aids, yes, in increasing the profit margin of a development studio. It aims at satisfying shareholders, and putting more money into a corporations coffers.

However, without that money, that capital, in reserve, I very much doubt a company would be willing to take a risk on an untried convention in gaming, outside of a reasonable adaptation. Consumers are a fickle lot, and the current stance that the gaming community has taken just shows how fickle they are.

You are correct. First sale doctrine make it legal for you to be able to do that. There is no part of it guaranteeing that the manufacturer or any other party has to provide any further additional services.

As an aside? I am a person just like you. Again, I state, a better model could be used, i.e. Splitting a game into two separate disks, one single, one multi-player. Manufacturer side used game swapping, sort of like amazon meets e-bay. There are several options available. The current model that has been enacted by 3 parties (manufacturing, retailing, consumer) is helping no one, save for the guy in the middle.

If you want to make a positive change? Rail at GameStop for not giving the manufacturer 10% of the profits from their used sales. Rail at GameStop for not giving you, the consumer, more money for your trade in, so that you only have to trade 2 to 1. It all comes down to domino effects, and I think if we sat down, breathed, and thought for a moment, that we as a community would paint a bullseye on the entity that deserves it.

dbphreakdb:

CM156:

No I wouldn't. However, it isn't working for free if the game was sold the first time.

First. Sale. Doctrine. Look it up.

Thank you for pointing toward that particular piece of law. Indeed, there is no copyright infringement for selling a game, nor buying it used. Furthermore, you are allowed to do it. This however, does not guarantee access to a packaged service, when an item is bought second hand.

Which wasn't really my point. Your question was "would you work for free". I stated that that wasn't really the case here.

dbphreakdb:

As an aside? I am a person just like you. Again, I state, a better model could be used, i.e. Splitting a game into two separate disks, one single, one multi-player. Manufacturer side used game swapping, sort of like amazon meets e-bay. There are several options available. The current model that has been enacted by 3 parties (manufacturing, retailing, consumer) is helping no one, save for the guy in the middle.

I agree. As I've said before, there's legally nothing stoping publishers from running their own Brick-and-Mortar stores

dbphreakdb:

If you want to make a positive change? Rail at GameStop for not giving the manufacturer 10% of the profits from their used sales..

10%? Even under droit de suite, the most that's given is 5% on a multi-million dollar singlar item (At least under French law). 10% is waaaaaay out there. And if they did give that 10% to the publishers, would the publishers cut out the pass system? Likely, no. They would not.

PunkRex:
Here in Enland we userly pay 45-60 for a brand spanking new game... which is about $60-$70 dollars... bad timez... I havnt bout a new AAA game in about a year, I mainly only play XBox live arcade now... to be honest, its been really fun... except for Clash of Heros, YOU JUST GOT 5 LINKS IN A ROW RANDOMLY?! BOLLOX!!!

Good God man, where do you shop?! Quick tip: go to Amazon.co.uk and buy new titles for 25-35. Heck, even Steam is cheaper than your rates, and if you pre-order a title you're very excited about you can save yourself 10% or more, without waiting for months in the hope of a sale or price reduction. Smart shopping, what-ho!

Bostur:

Mouse_Crouse:
I just don't understand why people are so against used games. The pump money into the industry and courts have upheld time and time again that we have the right to sell our licensed product to others. The publishers not seeing any money dosen't hold up either, because EVERY used game anywhere ever, was once a new game that was purchased.

This is the most important argument. A free market is based on transferring of ownership through trading. Second hand trading is just as important and valid and is acceptable in every market including copyrighted products. The whole idea of copyright is to turn intellectual value into tradeable goods.
By restricting trade game companies simply devalue their own products for both themselves and their consumers.

Nice to see Jim cover a serious topic again, he is at his best when angry :-)

Mister Bostur. I would like for you to think on this for a moment, as well as the person you quoted.

Yes, it at one point was a new game. That is agreed. The question is, how many 'New Game Sales' did that 'Used Game' kill? Especially if the game is 'Used' two weeks after release? Now, what you have here is a question of rights.

Yes, it is your right to sell your game. It is also your right to buy it used. It is not your right, but a privilege to give you access to online services and support. A game company selling online passes, is it extracting it's pound of flesh that GameStop refuses to give the manufacturer.

Lyri:

You can't even install a game without a CD-key, so what is the defining line here where it becomes such a problem?

It was bullshit when it started happening on PC and it's bullshit now. Doesn't matter though 'cus publishers've seen that we'll put up with it.

Pandabearparade:

You know how to fix the problem these publishers are facing? Make games people -have- to play, and don't want to trade back in.

Uh, with the industry the way is at the moment this just isn't gonna happen. Sad maybe, but you know it's true.

Surely this is all simple consumer economics. A consumer will decide which deal what a better value and purchase that one.

It's not even a small saving (in the UK anyways)typical cost of new game ~60, the games I buy pre-owned 3 for 20. That's right I get 3 games for a third the price of a new game and not as long after coming out as you think. Guess what, I play all these pre owned games on my pre-owned xbox.

Why? not because I can't afford it but because that just makes better consumer sense, I don't have to justify why I do this to anyone as it's completely legal and I get to play the games I want at a fraction of the cost. You can all jump around calling me selfish and what not but can everyone stop getting on their high horses about how they buy the games new to support the industry, you're all starting to sound like a bunch of art snobs going on about how much better you are.

My car is second hand but I've never heard Mazda complain or had them try to take features off my car unless I pay them extra because they'd get their asses handed to them through the courts. I agree new/.extra content should be payed for as "DLC" as would any new upgrades to my car but standard features should be standard to all.

dbphreakdb:

Bostur:

Mouse_Crouse:
I just don't understand why people are so against used games. The pump money into the industry and courts have upheld time and time again that we have the right to sell our licensed product to others. The publishers not seeing any money dosen't hold up either, because EVERY used game anywhere ever, was once a new game that was purchased.

This is the most important argument. A free market is based on transferring of ownership through trading. Second hand trading is just as important and valid and is acceptable in every market including copyrighted products. The whole idea of copyright is to turn intellectual value into tradeable goods.
By restricting trade game companies simply devalue their own products for both themselves and their consumers.

Nice to see Jim cover a serious topic again, he is at his best when angry :-)

Mister Bostur. I would like for you to think on this for a moment, as well as the person you quoted.

Yes, it at one point was a new game. That is agreed. The question is, how many 'New Game Sales' did that 'Used Game' kill? Especially if the game is 'Used' two weeks after release? Now, what you have here is a question of rights.

Yes, it is your right to sell your game. It is also your right to buy it used. It is not your right, but a privilege to give you access to online services and support. A game company selling online passes, is it extracting it's pound of flesh that GameStop refuses to give the manufacturer.

If a game is 'used' 2 weeks after release I guess that game was very poor value for money and the consumer got a bad deal. If something was killed I suppose the game killed itself.

If a game is marketed as having multiplayer I think the consumer has a right to expect that the multiplayer feature is actually working. Otherwise it should be clear at the time of purchase that multiplayer is not a supported feature that is part of the product.

Gamestop making a business as a broker is a detail that I find irrelevant. If they can legally make a business brokering used games then good for them, if not thats their problem. I don't see why game companies should interfere with Gamestop's business.

Game companies can choose not to sell their games, then they can prevent a second hand market, but that wouldn't be much of a business would it. By selling a product the idea is that ownership is transferred and control lost. You can't have your cake and eat it.

MajorDolphin:
11. Sell your old games to massive used game market via Craigslist, Gamestop or any other outlet.

Oh wait, that should be banned by the UN Used Game Police.

Way to miss the entire point of everything I said.

Publishers, do what Steam does. Offer your games on a sale for less! During the summer sale, I bought many games, and paid about the same as a regular game. I'm sure many other people did the same. That means while you made maybe a bit less, MANY more people tried your game and is far more likely to buy another one of your games later, likely at full price.

Mouse_Crouse:
I just don't understand why people are so against used games. The pump money into the industry and courts have upheld time and time again that we have the right to sell our licensed product to others. The publishers not seeing any money dosen't hold up either, because EVERY used game anywhere ever, was once a new game that was purchased.

Yes, the problem is that if 50 people buy the game new and then sell it back after about a week once they've beaten it, and then another 50 people buy the used copies, the publishers only get money from the first 50 people. The problem isn't with used games, it's that the publishers don't get ANY of the money from used games, even when they're sold by the same people who sell the new versions. The online passes are just a way to get around that. Sure they they suck, but Gamestop isn't going to play nice and give the publishers a few dollars on each used game sale. That's fucked up. The publishers are the ones that MAKE THE GAMES, as consumers, we should be rewarding them for their hard work so that they can produce even better games. Gamestop is just freaking greedy.

The only other way to fix the problem is for one retailer, say, Walmart for instance, to make a deal with the publishers that they get a few dollars on every used game. Then the publishers could boycott Gamestop. But that isn't a terribly viable option because 1) it's unlikely that any distributer is going to make that deal, and 2) it's very, very risky for the publishers.

bombadilillo:

teisjm:
This problem will disapear, if digital distribution takes over, because somehow DD seems to get away with having no second hand market, because they're the only ones capable of providing it on their platforms, and somehow, people don't seem to care about it that way...

Here here. If more AAA games could just be dled to my PS3 I would love it. I have a great connection and with proper preloading its no problem for slower connected users. But no they dont want to alienate brick and mortor stores like gamestop...who they hate...idiots.

I'm not quite sure whether you rightfully agree with me, wrongfully agree with me, or disagrees with me...

My point is actually, that i'm dumbstruck by the fact, that noone is complaining about the complete cut-out of the second-hand market, or less controversial subjects by DD.

I would hate to get a game for my playstation as a PSN download, if i could get it on a disc, cause i can't easily bring a PSN download to a friends place, and play it with him on his PS3, without bringing my own. I can't borrow a PSN game from a friend, or to a friend.
same goes for CD's vs iTunes.

What would make sense to me is, if the digital distributors saw this disadvantage to their clients, as such, and not just an advantage to themselves, and used that, as well as he reduced costs for digital copies (no physical material, no store to sell it, and store-keepers to be paid etc.) as an incentive to sell the DD copies at a lower price, but apart from the special steam sales, it's usually cheaper for me, to get a boxed copy from a store, than to get the same game over steam.

Very insightful and well stated. Loved the show.

Although, for the record... it isn't bad for everyone. I dislike gaming online - I only want my game single player. So it doesn't hurt me in the slightest.

Of course, since I don't buy used games (for other reason) excepting old PS2 titles, it also doesn't benefit me at all. In fact, the whole Online Pass thing has pretty much had no effect on my gaming experience at all, good or bad.

Also: Captcha: EA i deli
Huh. I had no idea that EA owned an i-Deli. I wonder if they make tasty i-sandwiches.

csoloist:

It was bullshit when it started happening on PC and it's bullshit now. Doesn't matter though 'cus publishers've seen that we'll put up with it.

Ok so you're angry about it but what is your actual argument here?
This is what I don't understand.

Codes have to be put in when installing PC games, nobody has kicked up a fuss about it because you have to put in some kind of ridiculous sequence to install.
Yet as soon as it rears it's head on a console it becomes a completely different beast altogether.

I guess I was hoping that Jim may pick up on the question, you never know.
I'd be interested to hear his viewpoint on the matter.

What are you, twelve? Swearing excessively doesn't make your point more profound, Jim. Think of it as a salt, or pepper, on a meal. Enough can make it taste better. Too much makes it taste like ass.

In regards to your other, more drawn out, point, most people aren't going to be buying two AAA release games at once. They'll buy one now, and another when their next dash of spare change becomes available. If you feel so entitled that, once a week, or once a month, you should get a gratis copy of a new game just because you have played other new games, then more power to you, but I'd hate to be your wallet, for it must be quite lonely.

Have some damn patience for what you want, like an adult, or look into a rental service, as there are quite a few of them now, I understand. A bratty kid who complains that he wants his Christmas presents early and gets them has no room to complain when he has nothing to open on Xmas day with the rest of the people. It's baseless entitlement like this that continues to make us as both gamers and people look like egocentric, conceited little shits, complaining that they don't get exactly what they want. And as much fun as screaming about it is, offering no solutions means all you're doing is making an annoyingly ridiculous amount of noise that offends one ears to hear over prolonged periods.

Financial issues aside, being a pc gamer I never thought about how much more awkward such codes are for console users. I'd probably have a fit of rage too (in fact that already happens from time to time, most notably when I had to spend 1.5 hours trying to set up an xbox live account when I don't even own an xbox). I have to admit I completely lost my shit and started laughing hysterically at "Fuck you Imhotep!" though.

You missed the biggest flaw in the online pass system.

They lose their value very quickly, especially for games that aren't major multiplayer titles. Who the fuck is going to pay for an online pass for a game which is deader than a dodo's danglies online anyway? And, of course, this becomes doubly self defeating because it means that the online playerbase is less likely to be propped up long post release by second hand buyers.

There is a real answer to the problem of monetarising used sales, and it's not terribly complicated. Make Good DLC. If you make good DLC that's worth having, then people who pick the game up after release will be tempted to buy it, giving you moneys. It's not even relevant whether you give some of it away as a bribe to first purchasers, it just has to be worth having for its own sake.

Take, for instance, one of the examples in the video, Dead Space 2. I'm gonna bet that DS2 is a wasteland online these days, so the value of an online pass for it is zero. However, there was a piece of singleplayer DLC, and it's okay, if you like Dead Space, it's some more Dead Space. So, I've recently bought Dead Space 2 for 10, I'll have absolutely no qualms plonking down another 5 for a bit more of it, and EA will actually get some of that money. They'll get fuck all off the online pass, because there's no reason to buy it, there being no-one online.

Zyst:

Sucal:
Just pointing out, that any american who complains about $60 games should come buy games in Australia.

Just saying, anyone in the "First World" who complains about game prices should come to any third world country ever.

Games are around 100 (American) Dollars here (Mexico), and the minimum wage is 3 dollars, per day. That's right, not per hour, per day.

So next time you're thinking about complaining how games are really expensive over there, just... think about it, really.

Yes but you see, no-one cares about the third world...

Nice to see Jim buys Koei games as I'm a fan of the Dynasty Warriors series myself. :P

Buying used games isn't as black and white as most seem to put it. Some people can only buy used games, some people will ONLY buy used games. There's a huge diffirence there.

People who can only buy used games simply don't have the budget to spare, and I can relate to that. I've been there, and it's frustrating as hell to put up with.

Then there's people who'll -only- buy used games even if they have the cash for new games for what ever reason.

However, the companies tend to get their money when they ship their games to stores, not when the games are actually sold. It's just how it works. The stores don't send money every time their game sells a copy, the stores buy a lot of copies and invest in it in the hopes they'll all sell.

In otherwords, the store pays the publisher for copies, the publisher pays the developer (Or something like that). People already get paid save the store sellign the copies who're taking the gamble.

But if a store sells used copies it's less new copies they need, usually, however, so they don't order more new copies to sell. That said, the Publisher doesn't get as much money.

If the new games just don't sell, it might hurt confidence in the company. I've noticed Walmart seemed to show this as they don't stock as many Koei made games as they used to.

I haven't had to deal with the online pass problem yet as I don't like FPSes in general, sports games, etc. I'll probably hate it when I have to, though. Until then I just don't feel strongly against it. Someone's getting paid for used game sales where they wouldn't otherwise, meaning they get to live, and eat, and make more games.

Is it our fault that gamestop sells used games for 5 dollars less than a new game which makes buying used more expensive than new, though? I don't think so.

As for rewarding the people who buy new, honestly, I bought a used collectors edition of Saints Row 2 a while ago and got most of the promotional stuff along with it. The USB drive wasn't even used, so special editions that come with swag won't necessarily be a reward solely to the people buying new. Wait long enough and even the special edition will have a price drop, or be sold used.

Pre-order bonusess are more annoying than anything to me. It doesn't ensure a game is worth it. My friend and I pre-ordered dead island, and got the special edition, and my friend kinda hates dead island. I think that hurts things more than helps. Yes I know there's no real pre-order bonus to Dead Island, but it sorta holds up, doesn't it?

So what sort of "rewards" should there be? I dunno.

Someone, somewhere will figure out a better business model so the publishers, and developers get the money they want/need while not mauling the people buying their games with expenses.

To those thaat read, thanks for putting up with my ramblings. I hope I made sense. :P

MianusIzBleeding:

1) Used games do NOT pump money back into the industry...The only profit from used games goes to the retailer.

2) Sure, every used game used to be new at one point but look at it this way:
Say, LoveFilm buy 500 copies of RAGE new. Theres the profits from 500 sales that go to the devs of said game. 1000 people then rent that game from LoveFilm. Sure, 500 were bought originally but theres the profits of 1000 sales lost. Money the devs deserve due to the massive amount of time spent on games now. Time those guys spent working overnight away from their families to make a game in the hope that people would wise up to the fact that they need the money to keep developing games.

rant fucking over!!!

Used games absolutely pump money back into the industry because people use the money they get for trading in to purchase new games (and sometimes more used) as well. Many games would go un-bought (new or otherwise) if there wasn't a trade in system. As for the money Gamestop makes. They continue to buy new product and accessories to sell in their store. All of that money from being a store goes directly to the people that sell the games. When there is 20 copies of Newgame 2: Revenge of the Sequel sitting on the shelf the companies that made it have already seen money for ALL 20 copies. The new games were all purchased by Gamestop to set them on the shelves.

The problem trying to argue these things is that there is no way to know what would have happened without the used sales. Sure 1 person might buy new and 1 more might buy used. But would that one person who bought used have bought new if there was no used option. Sometimes and sometimes not, it's not an absolute situation. There is no every case. As many as would have bought it new would have just borrowed from a friend. The courts have upheld the right to sell my licensed games the same as they have for used cars, used cds, and used couches. None of those industries are charging me 10 dollars to use it 2nd hand. And there's no reason they should.

Edit: for clarity and readability.

I agree with the Jimquisition's assessment.

I guess the 'extra character or gear' mumbo jumbo is slightly better, but not much [ie Shale in DA:O]. Opening my new game and having to sort through all the little advert pamphlets to see if I need to do anything is tedious.

GloatingSwine:
There is a real answer to the problem of monetarising used sales, and it's not terribly complicated. Make Good DLC. If you make good DLC that's worth having, then people who pick the game up after release will be tempted to buy it, giving you moneys. It's not even relevant whether you give some of it away as a bribe to first purchasers, it just has to be worth having for its own sake.

Case in point: Team Fortress 2. An in-game store added as part of the ongoing free DLC campaign that has allowed the game to still be widely played online four years after release has allowed VALVe to switch the game to a free to play microtransaction supported model which is actually making them more money in the long run. It's just a shame that they are not spending it on the next half-life game like they should be doing!

Developers, if you make a shitty game, don't blame me when I sell it to a used game shop. I have GTAIV. I bought it new a long time ago. I love it. I'M NOT GOING TO SELL THIS GAME EVAR. People don't sell things they like.

Azuaron:

ImSkeletor:
And you know what? I LIKE giving the money to gamestop, they give jobs to thousands of people and I will CONTINUE SUPPORTING THEM.

Seriously? You'd rather give money to a retailer than support the people who actually make the games you want to play?

Like, if you could buy a game you wanted from Publisher for $20, or you could buy it from Gamestop for $20, you'd choose Gamestop, because you want to support them, instead of the people who actually made the game, and need the money to keep making games that you'll want?

Oh definately not. But if Gamestop gives me a significantly better deal I'll give them my money. Or if the game has an online pass because I want to make sure any company with an online pass doesn't get a freaking dime. Im just trying to say that if they want to screw me I am perfectly happy giving my money to Gamestop instead.

cookyy2k:
Surely this is all simple consumer economics. A consumer will decide which deal what a better value and purchase that one.

It's not even a small saving (in the UK anyways)typical cost of new game ~60, the games I buy pre-owned 3 for 20. That's right I get 3 games for a third the price of a new game and not as long after coming out as you think. Guess what, I play all these pre owned games on my pre-owned xbox.

Why? not because I can't afford it but because that just makes better consumer sense, I don't have to justify why I do this to anyone as it's completely legal and I get to play the games I want at a fraction of the cost. You can all jump around calling me selfish and what not but can everyone stop getting on their high horses about how they buy the games new to support the industry, you're all starting to sound like a bunch of art snobs going on about how much better you are.

My car is second hand but I've never heard Mazda complain or had them try to take features off my car unless I pay them extra because they'd get their asses handed to them through the courts. I agree new extra content should be payed for as "DLC" as would any new upgrades to my car but standard features should be standard to all.

That's just it though. When you bought your used car, you weren't guaranteed the same thing that the person who bought it first was. Thus, whether or not you got a warranty, was a factor of whether the manufacturer or dealer wanted to give you one.

Yes, online multi-player is marketed for those who buy the game new. However, multi-player is just that, a selectively provided service. It is their right to charge you for it if you do not buy the product new, just like if you want an extended warranty on a used car, you have to pay for it.

Bostur:

dbphreakdb:

Bostur:

This is the most important argument. A free market is based on transferring of ownership through trading. Second hand trading is just as important and valid and is acceptable in every market including copyrighted products. The whole idea of copyright is to turn intellectual value into tradeable goods.
By restricting trade game companies simply devalue their own products for both themselves and their consumers.

Nice to see Jim cover a serious topic again, he is at his best when angry :-)

Mister Bostur. I would like for you to think on this for a moment, as well as the person you quoted.

Yes, it at one point was a new game. That is agreed. The question is, how many 'New Game Sales' did that 'Used Game' kill? Especially if the game is 'Used' two weeks after release? Now, what you have here is a question of rights.

Yes, it is your right to sell your game. It is also your right to buy it used. It is not your right, but a privilege to give you access to online services and support. A game company selling online passes, is it extracting it's pound of flesh that GameStop refuses to give the manufacturer.

If a game is 'used' 2 weeks after release I guess that game was very poor value for money and the consumer got a bad deal. If something was killed I suppose the game killed itself.

If a game is marketed as having multiplayer I think the consumer has a right to expect that the multiplayer feature is actually working. Otherwise it should be clear at the time of purchase that multiplayer is not a supported feature that is part of the product.

Gamestop making a business as a broker is a detail that I find irrelevant. If they can legally make a business brokering used games then good for them, if not thats their problem. I don't see why game companies should interfere with Gamestop's business.

Game companies can choose not to sell their games, then they can prevent a second hand market, but that wouldn't be much of a business would it. By selling a product the idea is that ownership is transferred and control lost. You can't have your cake and eat it.

I have seen plenty of good titles sold as used two weeks after they were bought. Some people hold onto a game when they beat it, some they don't.

The fact that you are willing to ignore Gamestop's role in this whole contentious fiasco, is a rather deliberate display of the enabling of corporate greed. The very thing you decry the game manufacturers for.

I have bought two games used. Saint's Row 2 and Call of Duty World at War. I would have never bought them new. I actually got both through GameFly. Ended up liking them and buying them from them. Then I bought all the DLC for both. That's about 30 and 40 bucks respectively. Money THQ and EA would have never had from me if I didn't buy those games used. While I haven't bought another CoD since, I've already got Saint's Row the Third pre-ordered which would have never happened if didn't buy the second used. More and likely I'll buy all the DLC for that as well. Which means THQ probably is going to get all together 120 bucks they would have never seen from me otherwise if I hadn't been able to buy Saint's Row 2 used.

So screw online passes.

Mirrorknight:
I have bought two games used. Saint's Row 2 and Call of Duty World at War. I would have never bought them new. I actually got both through GameFly. Ended up liking them and buying them from them. Then I bought all the DLC for both. That's about 30 and 40 bucks respectively. Money THQ and EA would have never had from me if I didn't buy those games used. While I haven't bought another CoD since, I've already got Saint's Row the Third pre-ordered which would have never happened if didn't buy the second used. More and likely I'll buy all the DLC for that as well. Which means THQ probably is going to get all together 120 bucks they would have never seen from me otherwise if I hadn't been able to buy Saint's Row 2 used.

So screw online passes.

I commend your exceptionalism.

As that is apparently not a real word, i will point out to you that the root of it is exceptional, which the root of that is exception.

As in, the exception rather than the rule.

You are indeed a new convert from a used game, and that is to be commended. The crux of the ordeal is that the margins for used to new conversions are very load. Most people who buy used, stay used.

Levethian:

Jaime_Wolf:
And without online passes, there's no compensation for that - publishers don't just miss out on sales money from used sales, they get actively screwed.

The consumers that use online services without compensating the publisher will in all likelihood make up for it by purchasing sequels (and if they didn't like the game, they probably wouldn't play long enough to cause much 'load'). Bottom line - it's good press. Bigger audience equates to more potential future customers.

And games that don't have sequels? What about games for which a sequel doesn't make sense? What about games that are well-received, but sell too poorly to justify a sequel? Those second sort tend to have the highest per-player cost for providing online services. And before someone gets all "oh, but they would get a sequel because they'd have better press!" on me, there are already plenty such games that have no additional online cost and still can't generate enough sales to justify a sequel.

And then there's the larger issue. The fact that they get more press is not the bottom line. The bottom line is what you get when you compare the additional press they get to the cost of that press. If they actually sell enough additional future units to recoup the cost, then it would be a good decision to forego the pass system. If they don't sell enough to recoup the cost, it would be a poor decision not to charge for the pass. The fact that they get press out of it is only important if the benefits outweigh the opportunity cost. And I'm very skeptical of the typically baseless claims that we can just somehow sense that they would make more money by foregoing the pass system. Especially since it's a baseless assumption that just so happens to accord with the desires of the consumers at the potential expense of the producer (i.e. if it turns out to be wrong, the consumer still benefits and the producer assumes all of the costs of the error).

Levethian:

Jaime_Wolf:
I do not buy for a second that the games implementing online passes are preventing people from buying games and really hurting consumers.

If the resale value of games drops $10, of course it will dissuade some people from buying too many games in the first instance.

You might notice that about two sentences later I mentioned that I doubt that this number is significant. Of course it will dissuade some people, but the question is whether it dissuades so many that it is in fact a bad business decision as claimed. The notion that cheaper used games mean more future purchases sounds nice, but I'm very skeptical that the numbers even begin to add up. Generally speaking, if massive companies like this with tremendous resources have started actively pursuing and campaigning for a particular marketing scheme, it's because they're pretty damn sure it will make them more money. There are certainly cases where large companies like this accidentally overlook long-term marketing while making some seemingly unrelated decision, but pricing plans are really not within that realm very often.

Azuaron:

MajorDolphin:
11. Sell your old games to massive used game market via Craigslist, Gamestop or any other outlet.

Oh wait, that should be banned by the UN Used Game Police.

Way to miss the entire point of everything I said.

No, I got your "make more money you bum" list. Kind of pathetic.

Mouse_Crouse:

MianusIzBleeding:

1) Used games do NOT pump money back into the industry...The only profit from used games goes to the retailer.

2) Sure, every used game used to be new at one point but look at it this way:
Say, LoveFilm buy 500 copies of RAGE new. Theres the profits from 500 sales that go to the devs of said game. 1000 people then rent that game from LoveFilm. Sure, 500 were bought originally but theres the profits of 1000 sales lost. Money the devs deserve due to the massive amount of time spent on games now. Time those guys spent working overnight away from their families to make a game in the hope that people would wise up to the fact that they need the money to keep developing games.

rant fucking over!!!

Used games absolutely pump money back into the industry because people use the money they get for trading in to purchase new games (and sometimes more used) as well. Many games would go un-bought (new or otherwise) if there wasn't a trade in system. As for the money Gamestop makes. They continue to buy new product and accessories to sell in their store. All of that money from being a store goes directly to the people that sell the games. When there is 20 copies of Newgame 2: Revenge of the Sequel sitting on the shelf the companies that made it have already seen money for ALL 20 copies. The new games were all purchased by Gamestop to set them on the shelves.

The problem trying to argue these things is that there is no way to know what would have happened without the used sales. Sure 1 person might buy new and 1 more might buy used. But would that one person who bought used have bought new if there was no used option. Sometimes and sometimes not, it's not an absolute situation. There is no every case. As many as would have bought it new would have just borrowed from a friend. The courts have upheld the right to sell my licensed games the same as they have for used cars, used cds, and used couches. None of those industries are charging me 10 dollars to use it 2nd hand. And there's no reason they should.

Edit: for clarity and readability.

There is of course the fact that those 4 used games that were traded in to buy a solitary new one, are now used to take (possible) money away from those other 4 titles you traded in.

Let me give you an example. I have Duke Nukem Forever, Borderlands, Witcher 2, and Call of Duty (not a newer installment in the franchise, but new enough that there is still new copies being sold). I want to buy Warhammer Space Marines. We'll say in the perfect world, that those four games are good enough to get me Warhammer Space Marines off the shelf. Brand Spankin New.

Now, I just traded in 2 very recent titles, and two sort of borderline titles. All are still in a fair amount of demand i would presume. All of those still have new copies on the shelf. Some of those copies, units as they were, have been sitting there on the shelf a while, because the used units keep trickling in, and displacing the need for GameStop to order new units.

With Gamestop ordering no new replacement unit from manufacturer, yes, I got them to order 1 new replacement unit. In exchange, they don't have to order 4. How can this not hurt the game manufacturer?

With each new episode I keep agreeing with you more!

MajorDolphin:

Azuaron:

MajorDolphin:
11. Sell your old games to massive used game market via Craigslist, Gamestop or any other outlet.

Oh wait, that should be banned by the UN Used Game Police.

Way to miss the entire point of everything I said.

No, I got your "make more money you bum" list. Kind of pathetic.

Make more money, then buy twice as many games pre-owned. No matter how much money you have pre-owned are still cheaper.

It's amazing that gamers are such entitled gits, really. They let you in beta, but it doesn't run flawlessly? X developer is crap! They developed an extra costume for a character in the meantime between stopping development and the product shipping? Corporations are trying to tear down our customer rights with Day One DLC! I can't buy two brand new games on the same day? Dear god, games are too expensive!

Here's an idea for how to work around the system: buy a (one) game that you really want. Play it until something better comes along or until you can afford something new by working a while. You don't need Space Marine *and* Dead Island. You can't play them at the same time. If you can, please post vids because that's pretty neat.

Do I want to buy Space Marine? Yes. Do I want to buy Dead Island? Absolutely. Do I want a Kinect? Sure, seems neat. But I can't afford it right now. So I'm going to have to wait. That's how economics works.

Corporations are evil. Yes, we know. But developers aren't three-tounged beasts that code by braying in the Lost Words into a microphone. They're people. They have families and mortgages and an intense need to eat. You're not fighting the power by complaining about having to pay a whole ten extra dollars. Which, I might add, isn't that much when you consider the price of the game as a whole.

All things aside, have you tried renting? It's the same thing as far as the dev's compensation, and it's probably cheaper.

Catalyst6:
It's amazing that gamers are such entitled gits, really.

Entitled (verb); Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.

Yep, we are entitled to buy pre-owned as it's legal.

I'm sorry to say I can't empathize with you, Jim. I never buy games used. Ever. I don't trust refurbished disks or equipment. The last 2 used games I bought had gigantic scratches on them that rendered them useless, and my used DS Lite, after a month (the warranty was gone by that point), started having pieces fall off of it, and the touchscreen's LCD is broken, making the damn thing jumble like hell. I can't even use it anymore >:(

And not everyone plays online. Most of the time, online play is just some shitty thing that's tacked onto the whole game for money, not because the game needs it. Ugh, no thank you, I'll stick to my MEs and my Skyrims.

If having to take the extra fifteen seconds to enter in a code really bothers you THAT much, I think you need to relax for a second and go find a better way to spend your time. Codes are just a way for publishers to keep more money going to them. With the shitty used stuff Gamestop sells, I'm not really all that up in arms about buying games new to get benefits.

 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