First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Is the online pass bad for gaming?
Posted 10/12/11
http://www.lensoftruth.com/feature-online-pass-bad-for-gaming/

It will sorely irritate me if this gets moved to general gaming because it's not necessarily about gaming, it's about business tactics and if it's bad for the economy and all that junk, it's not about playing games are all, and "General Gaming" doesn't involve business tactics and whatnot, hopefully the moderators won't take the troll route.

Anyway, that link above goes to an article about used game sales and passes, it explains what I wanted to explain about what a pass is, for those too lazy to click the link.

An online pass is a 10$ - 20$ fee you have to pay to access the online content for a game that has a pass.

Example, your adorable boyfriend/girlfriend, gives you a copy of say..... Uncharted 3, she/he is holding two copies, they get a brand new shiny, gold limited edition copy, while you get a plain-Jane used copy, probably played by some greasy fat guy named Ernie and sold early because he was disappointed it wasn't some type of hentai.

They tell you to meet them online then head back to their house to play.

You get some type of slime on your hand so you clean the game case first THEN put the game in.

You boot the game up then click the online play option and the game says.

"Put in a code", you realize you have no code, you would have to pay 10 or 20 bucks just for the online content, even though you(Or your boyfriend/girlfriend) rightfully payed for the game, and since they bought their game new, they happily gaming online since their copy came with a code.

Get it now? The game industry are implementing codes in their games to get profit from second hand sales.

Apparently they want more profit than they're already getting despite bringing in 500$ Billion in sales last year alone, okay that's all great and all but the online pass is the wrong way to go about doing it is all.

They shamelessly try to make gamers believe it'll lead to more games being produced instead of Sony buying that island they always wanted, they want gamers to believe it's going to the developers, that's not the case at all.

All the online pass stuff goes to the publisher and the publisher only, developers get paid over the course of development, not each game sold or online pass....passed.

Whenever a new game get's bought, the game publisher get's paid initially -- that's the money they get, no industry get's to put their hand in a second hand market, the video game industry isn't special.

To get more sales in other industries, they give you deals, price drops, bundles, etc.

The gaming industry gives you an online pass? That's a deterrent, not incentive to buy games.
Consumers don't like to feel forced and they don't like to feel taking advantage of.

Whenever you pay for a game, that game is yours, and if you wanna sell Dark Souls because it's buggy, poorly designed, and has inexplicable design choices, you should be able too -- and the whole game should be sold with it.

Sure game publishers want more $$$, that's fine.

Used Game market is big business, Gamestop, Bestbuy 7-Eleven and many more are jumping on board, as much as Pass supporters wanna believe Gamestop is the only used game market, they're not.

Amazon, garage sales, yard sales, local entertainment shops, pawn shops, your friends, hand-me downs.

They're many ways to get games, and anytime they're not brand spanking new, they wanna sucker punch you with a pass, is this wrong? Very, very, very wrong.

Whenever a guy wants a new iPhone that just came out last month, he looks into freeing himself from his current iPhone, he looks into selling his iPhone online or too a friend, who buys the used working iPhone because he doesn't have the money to purchase a new iPhone, so after he sells his old iPhone, he buys the new iPhone.... new.

It's a Win Win Win situation, the guy sells his old iPhone to get his new one, the guy who bought it used gets an iPhone and Apple Inc gets $$$ from the guy buying his new phone.

It it was the same principle, the guy selling his iPhone would have a harder time selling it if Apple imposed a 3G Pass, which made him unable to have enough money to buy a new iPhone, and he guy who WAS going to buy it used probably would have to skip out on buying it because the 3G pass would be a deterrent and Apple Inc wouldn't make any money because the guy couldn't afford to buy a new iPhone.

SKIP HERE IF YOU'RE TOO LAZY TO READ THE WHOLE THING!!!

Let's say the gaming industry successfully gets rid of the used game market.

Gamestop and and many other used game outlets would probably shut down, many jobs would be lost, Gamefly would probably be shut down, the game division of Block Buster would get shut down because WHO would rent Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 if you couldn't go online?

Younger gamers would probably have to give up gaming,

Older gamers who pays for internet, the game console, the games, the DLC and the online pass would probably have to give up gaming.

The college students who walks to gamestop to pick the latest shooters on Xbox Live, would have to quit gaming, since the internet, the game, the console, the DLC to not be forced out of any mode, the online pass and the 60$ yearly subscription of Xbox Live would be too steep so they probably would end up selling their consoles, peripherals, controllers and games(while EA and Sony are asleep) and give up gaming(At least on consoles).

This is actually fueling the iOS games.

Do you support the online pass?
Posted 10/12/11
Online passing? Pfft. You should see some of my rage rants about the increase in DLC. The game industry is just becoming voerly greedy and it is being overlooked. In the current economic state people should be getting more bang for their buck. BUT that isn't the case. Oh no, in fact now you are probably spending roughly a hundred dollars for all the content for a single game. That's plus DLC., Gaming itself has become an expensive hobby. In which case, there should have become an increase in quality.

There hasn't been any sort of spike in quality whatsoever.

When a game is used, much of its value is diminished. Kind of like figmas. Gamestop has a monopoly on games, it is absolutely doubtless. Which is why they aren't afraid to turn the cheek to complaints. Even though they could help stimulate the economy by buying a brand new game (simply played and used) for an additional extra twenty dollars. They don't, and they in fact make it worst as a result.

*insert rest of rant here*

As a result, the game industry is either a bunch of morons or a bunch of dickheads. Oh, or both. Since why make them mutually exclusive?
Posted 10/12/11
Ernie is probably your father
3245 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / New Jersey, U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 10/12/11
I dont mind really thats what disposable income is for after all. I got the season pass for Gears of War 3 so I get the first 4 DLC for 33% less than if I got them separate.
Posted 10/12/11

Lauriet wrote:

Online passing? Pfft. You should see some of my rage rants about the increase in DLC. The game industry is just becoming voerly greedy and it is being overlooked. In the current economic state people should be getting more bang for their buck. BUT that isn't the case. Oh no, in fact now you are probably spending roughly a hundred dollars for all the content for a single game. That's plus DLC., Gaming itself has become an expensive hobby. In which case, there should have become an increase in quality.

There hasn't been any sort of spike in quality whatsoever.

When a game is used, much of its value is diminished. Kind of like figmas. Gamestop has a monopoly on games, it is absolutely doubtless. Which is why they aren't afraid to turn the cheek to complaints. Even though they could help stimulate the economy by buying a brand new game (simply played and used) for an additional extra twenty dollars. They don't, and they in fact make it worst as a result.

*insert rest of rant here*

As a result, the game industry is either a bunch of morons or a bunch of dickheads. Oh, or both. Since why make them mutually exclusive?


So you feel the same way? The video game industry thinks their special, whenever you sale your PC, you sure as hell aren't going to be worrying about how much Dell gets.
Posted 10/12/11 , edited 10/12/11
lol online pass..... I don't even use that shit when they give it to me, I only buy games that are mostly for single-player... I only input the code if it's for games like Dark Souls or some DLC that I got for pre-order n stuff... It doesn't really bother me except the fact that they are just giving me extra paper that I throw around
Posted 10/12/11

Aero-Mach wrote:


Lauriet wrote:

Online passing? Pfft. You should see some of my rage rants about the increase in DLC. The game industry is just becoming voerly greedy and it is being overlooked. In the current economic state people should be getting more bang for their buck. BUT that isn't the case. Oh no, in fact now you are probably spending roughly a hundred dollars for all the content for a single game. That's plus DLC., Gaming itself has become an expensive hobby. In which case, there should have become an increase in quality.

There hasn't been any sort of spike in quality whatsoever.

When a game is used, much of its value is diminished. Kind of like figmas. Gamestop has a monopoly on games, it is absolutely doubtless. Which is why they aren't afraid to turn the cheek to complaints. Even though they could help stimulate the economy by buying a brand new game (simply played and used) for an additional extra twenty dollars. They don't, and they in fact make it worst as a result.

*insert rest of rant here*

As a result, the game industry is either a bunch of morons or a bunch of dickheads. Oh, or both. Since why make them mutually exclusive?


So you feel the same way? The video game industry thinks their special, whenever you sale your PC, you sure as hell aren't going to be worrying about how much Dell gets.


Yes, I feel the same way

But seriously, the game industry has become overly greedy. I wouldn't have said all of that if I didn't mean it. While I would like for my hobby to remain completely void of bureacracy and penny thieving, its just the way of the world anymore. Getting shit for gold more or less. They give you half a game and tell you you have to buy their DLC to get the rest of it.

Even though DLC was meant to counter-produce the quickly deteoriating value of videogames, it quickly became a general way of screwing the customers over. Again, half a game and the rest you have to digitally download.
84300 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Colorado, USA
Offline
Posted 10/12/11
For one, I'll note I don't think it's appropriate to attribute it as pure greed. The economy clearly collapsed. However regardless of the state of the economy, you live within that economy and are bound by its design. Neverminding the causes, just as you can say the economy led to a rise in pirating, the economy has also forced businesses into asking for more money. You can very visibly see that many buisnesses disappeared because of the economy. Businesses are suffering proportionately with consumers.

Another bit to clarify, while I dislike the overall role that publishers play, the money that goes to them doesn't just go straight to the pockets of some people lazily sitting behind a desk. Publishers help the developers too by various means, including getting help from other developers. So they do aim to put that money in productive areas.


Personally, used game retailers have always confused me. For one, they give gamers back very little for how much they later sell their used games, so that's always been a pretty high profit for the very small role they play. Personally, I would rather be paying people that had a role in making the game exist, as opposed to purely profiting people jumping at the opportunity of relieving others of unwanted goods. However I don't understand the legal aspect at all. In so many other areas of our bullshit copyright laws, royalties and other fees are charged at every opportunity for relatively small situations. Yet here we have some 3rd party experiencing 100% profit on full comprehensive works that were created by many entities. I think for consistency and balancing who profits, it really would be appropriate for used game retailers to just send a cut of the sales to the respective rights owners.


As for the individual situation at hand, I do think it is a bad move. As indicated, I think the involved companies should get some revenue for used games sold by businesses, but I think this goes overboard. A fee of $10-20 on top of what they already payed for the game looks like punishment, as a result it will indeed have a negative outcome. That linked article hits many major points very precisely, especially it thinning potential longevity for online communities. The most negative aspect I see is that it affects ALL used games, not just ones from used game retailers. This includes buying directly off friends. As it is, laws already give exception to minor personal sales, and only regulate business-level sales. That's why I'd rather the balancing be on a legal level instead of this implementation, because then retailers like GameStop are sending revenue without huge price increases, while friend-to-friend sales are unaffected.


I'll add, to my opening clarifications, some publishers --namely EA-- do exhibit more greed intentions than justice intentions. But you cannot treat them all the same.
Posted 10/13/11

For one, I'll note I don't think it's appropriate to attribute it as pure greed. The economy clearly collapsed. However regardless of the state of the economy, you live within that economy and are bound by its design. Neverminding the causes, just as you can say the economy led to a rise in pirating, the economy has also forced businesses into asking for more money. You can very visibly see that many buisnesses disappeared because of the economy. Businesses are suffering proportionately with consumers.


Hmm.... Come to think of it, Acclaim and Chrome Studios did shut down.


Another bit to clarify, while I dislike the overall role that publishers play, the money that goes to them doesn't just go straight to the pockets of some people lazily sitting behind a desk. Publishers help the developers too by various means, including getting help from other developers. So they do aim to put that money in productive areas.


Yeah, sometimes.



Personally, used game retailers have always confused me. For one, they give gamers back very little for how much they later sell their used games, so that's always been a pretty high profit for the very small role they play. Personally, I would rather be paying people that had a role in making the game exist, as opposed to purely profiting people jumping at the opportunity of relieving others of unwanted goods. However I don't understand the legal aspect at all. In so many other areas of our bullshit copyright laws, royalties and other fees are charged at every opportunity for relatively small situations. Yet here we have some 3rd party experiencing 100% profit on full comprehensive works that were created by many entities. I think for consistency and balancing who profits, it really would be appropriate for used game retailers to just send a cut of the sales to the respective rights owners.


Like I said in the article, people who bring up these points for some reason think Gamestop is the only second hand game seller, garage sales and yard sales come in too, also pawn shops, plus local game shops.

Gamestop is a crappy store run by crappy people, but it does pay people, second hand is a huge market, sure you'll get that extra Uncharted 4 costume to make Drake look chubby, but teenagers, parents and college studens have one less outlet to get games, one less outlet for jobs, one less outlet to find information, and one less source to find other gaming friends.



As for the individual situation at hand, I do think it is a bad move. As indicated, I think the involved companies should get some revenue for used games sold by businesses, but I think this goes overboard. A fee of $10-20 on top of what they already payed for the game looks like punishment, as a result it will indeed have a negative outcome. That linked article hits many major points very precisely, especially it thinning potential longevity for online communities. The most negative aspect I see is that it affects ALL used games, not just ones from used game retailers. This includes buying directly off friends. As it is, laws already give exception to minor personal sales, and only regulate business-level sales. That's why I'd rather the balancing be on a legal level instead of this implementation, because then retailers like GameStop are sending revenue without huge price increases, while friend-to-friend sales are unaffected.


As much as I hate Gamestop, this is still not right, whenever you pay for something, it's yours to sell as you see fit and not care for the guy who made.

Everyone who thinks of second hand sales, thinks of their favorite game franchise stopping dead in its tracks because of used game sales.

Whenever anyone sales a used a car, Toyota or Ford doesn't get any money from it, and they shouldn't.

As greedy as the gaming industry is getting, no industry should get continuous profit from one unit of what they ship.

Good Will doesn't pay Southpole and Nike's for selling their shoes and shirts.

As much as companies want to, you just can't keep getting paid for something already made a profit off of.

Selling a camera shouldn't make you pay Canon some extra money to use it's camera feature.

Business or regular joe, you just bend life's rules.


I'll add, to my opening clarifications, some publishers --namely EA-- do exhibit more greed intentions than justice intentions. But you cannot treat them all the same.



EA is no worse than Sony, who is basically killed your "free" PSN.

Sony is probably.... No, Sony is the worst of the gaming industry, the shadiest bunch of "people" I have ever seen.

PlayStation brand is dying, and they're only making it worse....
46492 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Montreal, Canada
Offline
Posted 10/13/11
tl;dr
84300 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Colorado, USA
Offline
Posted 10/13/11 , edited 10/13/11
I reiterate that stuff like garage sales have exceptions from the law, only things with business-status are regulated. GameStop is the only business chain that is near everyone. Non-businesses needn't be affected and it is indeed a consumer's right to get rid of unwanted stuff in exchange for compensation, but the problem that concerns me is the quantity of profit used retailers get. Of course, GameStop is the finest example. They're so profitable, that there are 3 GameStop stores within 10 minutes of me. I assume other retailers are profitable too because they're not closing nor looking depressed to the extent I can see.

I like your point of it being unreasonable to continue profiting. But unfortunately many laws are designed to enable that. It is primarily physical goods with a physical role that stay out of that area, however video games largely are in the boundary of being digital goods. Sony Music Entertainment is the most visible example of emphasizing our law system to enable infinite income on the most minute thinngs. We can't change the economy from the top down, because of already being within the economy, so if things are designed in this way, I much want people responsible for my entertainment to receive my money over an opportunist that I can avoid (which is what I do).
Posted 10/13/11

I reiterate that stuff like garage sales have exceptions from the law, only things with business-status are regulated. GameStop is the only business chain that is near everyone. Non-businesses needn't be affected and it is indeed a consumer's right to get rid of unwanted stuff in exchange for compensation, but the problem that concerns me is the quantity of profit used retailers get. Of course, GameStop is the finest example. They're so profitable, that there are 3 GameStop stores within 10 minutes of me. I assume other retailers are profitable too because they're not closing nor looking depressed to the extent I can see.

I like your point of it being unreasonable to continue profiting. But unfortunately many laws are designed to enable that. It is primarily physical goods with a physical role that stay out of that area, however video games largely are in the boundary of being digital goods. Sony Music Entertainment is the most visible example of emphasizing our law system to enable infinite income on the most minute thinngs. We can't change the economy from the top down, because of already being within the economy, so if things are designed in this way, I much want people responsible for my entertainment to receive my money over an opportunist that I can avoid (which is what I do).


I'm not trying to sound rude at all but....

Your resolution is really weak, Consumers own everything, without customers, no business would be a business, if you continue to support it, it'll only go further.

It doesn't matter who tries to force it, lawyers, police, government etc.

It doesn't matter, if the consumers don't bite it, it won't go, I don't really want Sony to profit.

If it was up too me, Sony would go under, I don't feel bad whenever people pirate Sony's digital goods, and the whole video games are digital goods doesn't fly.

They're disc based, which are physically, its the same as paying Apple to unlock your iPhone's 3G or paying Sony to let your TV's antenna work if you bought it second hand.

I'm not the submissive type of customer, I don't let business treat me anyway they like, I'm not going to sit by and let Sony diminish Uncharted 3 whenever I envitably giving to one of my younger family members who can't buy 60$ games every month.

I'm not going to go out of my way to pay someone to halve my game whenever I give it away(Or sell it if it sucks).

An opportunist? Are you referring to a college students who need cash or greedy douche bags like Gamestop?

I much rather pay a local pawn shop then kneel down to gaming companies trying their hardest to limit my options, there's no plus advantages for the customer or anyone with this pass, it's rather selfish, and it seems like the people who agree with it have grown up dependent on others.

I understand your of view, if had to pick, you rather pay Nintendo for Super Mario Galaxy then pay Gamestop, I would too -- if the last level didn't need a pass code.

And that's been debunked, Rage is a totally physical game that locks content out of the single player -- go figure right?

I'm not trying to sound like a douche, but look at PC Gaming, it has NO second hand sales whatsoever, the whole game is locked.

THAT'S the accomplishment they're trying to achieve with gaming consoles, this whole online only thing is the tip of the iceberg, if they get away with this, it's only allowing more wiggle room, they're not going to stop here.

If they take it little by little, people will just see it as a minor inconvience after minor inconvience, until the whole game is blocked out and Console gaming because the same as PC.

Here's a quote!



Whenever companies make the largest bag of chips the current fun size, whenever IP providers make 100 MB the highest cap on home internet, and whenever they start putting pass codes on cars.

They'll learn that as much as you want too and wish for it -- you just can't monetize everything.
.


Wow, such a long rant....
62007 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / The stars.. too b...
Offline
Posted 10/13/11 , edited 10/13/11

SKIP HERE IF YOU'RE TOO LAZY TO READ THE WHOLE THING!!!

Let's say the gaming industry successfully gets rid of the used game market.

Gamestop and and many other used game outlets would probably shut down, many jobs would be lost, Gamefly would probably be shut down, the game division of Block Buster would get shut down because WHO would rent Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 if you couldn't go online?

Younger gamers would probably have to give up gaming,

Older gamers who pays for internet, the game console, the games, the DLC and the online pass would probably have to give up gaming.

The college students who walks to gamestop to pick the latest shooters on Xbox Live, would have to quit gaming, since the internet, the game, the console, the DLC to not be forced out of any mode, the online pass and the 60$ yearly subscription of Xbox Live would be too steep so they probably would end up selling their consoles, peripherals, controllers and games(while EA and Sony are asleep) and give up gaming(At least on consoles).

This is actually fueling the iOS games.


Ok.. I've read this.. like 5 times..


WHAT THE FUCK????

You drop a hypothetical, a crap one at that. Then propose that it will destroy console gaming with everyone quitting? Then.. I don't know where the hell you go with the $$ point but I really don't think gamers are that poor.


Do you support the online pass?


What online pass???



Edit: I dunno? I guess you're upset that download content doesn't get transferred with used game? Seems you're also misunderstanding that secondhand sales in games stops etc generates ZERO income for publishers/devs.

Second edit: Found the link. You really should have just cut and pasted some of their stuff instead of trying to explain it yourself, really. I don't have problems with a "pass" because I don't buy used games. I do think the developers have the right to protect their interests, and selling second hand games yields them no profit.

I think you used a car analogy.. new and used.. buy a new car, you get incentives.. warranty/service plans, you buy a used car you don't get those incentives and have to PAY for them or any mishaps yourself, right?

I do see how it can damage the industry, but it will never abolish it. The used game market will ALWAYS be there regardless if some features are absent.
Muppe 
61432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Norway
Offline
Posted 10/13/11
My name ain´t Ernie, but I am always disappointed when I start a new game just to find out that there is no hentai in it. Like GT5, oh how I cried when I found out that it was a cargame... guess the box seldom lies. :P

But on toward the subject, which is an old one.
You see, everyone in the game industry, or any industry for that matter, is greedy. They all seek to make as much money as possible, in as short time as possible. And they really do not care what we think about this, as long as enough people pay then they will keep doing this.
Gamestop will still make the sell, the publisher will earn money on a simple code. The one to pay, well that is us.

Personally I almost always buy new, mostly becouse the local Gamestop sell their used games for almost the same as a new game.
39187 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 10/13/11
Its sucks for everyone in the 2nd hand market but developers and publishers are both tired of those businesses making pure profit off of their games and losing them sales.
Lets say they sell 1million copies at $60 a game, thats $60M. Then 400,000 games make it to gamestops used copy sale, not only does none of the money go to the people who made the game they're stealing another 400,000 possible sales at $60 a copy ($24M). Strictly business you wouldn't want somebody making pure profit off of your item and also losing sales because of it.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.