Online passes - Sony up next

gameboy280

gameboy280

CAGiversary!
I for one am simply outraged by the idea of the online pass that EA has created which is starting to cause other companies to look it. Sony has announced they are looking into the online pass as a viable way to increase profits. I will sell my playstation 3 and everything Sony that I own if they push this shit on us gamers like EA has(which I refuse to purchase EA games now no matter the title). I am sick of the how expensive gaming has become over the last 5 - 6 years. And really think of all the shitty games that are being released or the bug filled games.
 
Here's an article in case you wanna read it:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6274384.html

Personally I'm not really affected because I barely ever play online, and as far as sony's plans it just sounds like hearsay, but I can definitely see the concern here. I think it will blow up in their faces personally... Madden might be fairing well on this plan (but that's not really surprising since madden doesn't seem to be a big used game), but I think there would be alot of backlash on these subscription plans, not just from hardcore gamers but the general public who catch on to the piling of charges.
 
Last edited:
I personally have no problem with it, because most games I buy used I buy for the single player. Because most Online communities for games die within 2 or 3 months, unless it's a big title like BF:BC2, CoD, Halo, or Gears.

You don't have to worry about quitting Bioshock, they're not thinking about doing it for basic online play, just Sony first party titles.
 
I seriously don't understand the outrage here. Gaming is a business, and they make no money from you if you buy it used. With the advent of online gaming, you are now not only giving them no money from a used purchase, you are also continuing you use their resources to play their game online indefinitely. This is an especially important point in the case of EA, as they run their own servers.

I do, I get that whole 'I want cheap games! Grr Argh!' mentality, but this really isn't companies screwing you over. It just isn't. Online play is yet another digital age set-up where no one thought ahead, so it became accepted as a 'right', not a privelage. For a company like EA to run their own servers isn't cheap, and used sales connect users to that system with ZERO BENEFIT for EA. On a practical level, I can't say I blame them.

The bottom line is ALWAYS going to be: If you buy it used, these companies don't give a shit about you. They make ZERO dollars from you. Online is such a huge part of gaming now that it's completely logical that it's the part to hold back. You want to play online, buy it new, or give them $10. Seems simple enough.

Sorry for the rant, but I always see 'OUTRAGE!' over this, but it's just misguided. There's being a cheapass, and then there's being unreasonable.

(Note: this is only speaking about the 'entry fee' model that's popping up, NOT any kind of 'subscription' service that's been rumored. That's a whole other can of worms.)
 
[quote name='007']I seriously don't understand the outrage here. Gaming is a business, and they make no money from you if you buy it used. With the advent of online gaming, you are now not only giving them no money from a used purchase, you are also continuing you use their resources to play their game online indefinitely. This is an especially important point in the case of EA, as they run their own servers.

I do, I get that whole 'I want cheap games! Grr Argh!' mentality, but this really isn't companies screwing you over. It just isn't. Online play is yet another digital age set-up where no one thought ahead, so it became accepted as a 'right', not a privelage. For a company like EA to run their own servers isn't cheap, and used sales connect users to that system with ZERO BENEFIT for EA. On a practical level, I can't say I blame them.

The bottom line is ALWAYS going to be: If you buy it used, these companies don't give a shit about you. They make ZERO dollars from you. Online is such a huge part of gaming now that it's completely logical that it's the part to hold back. You want to play online, buy it new, or give them $10. Seems simple enough.

Sorry for the rant, but I always see 'OUTRAGE!' over this, but it's just misguided. There's being a cheapass, and then there's being unreasonable.

(Note: this is only speaking about the 'entry fee' model that's popping up, NOT any kind of 'subscription' service that's been rumored. That's a whole other can of worms.)[/QUOTE]

I agree with you to an extent, but I do have one problem with this model. I sell/trade a lot of games once I'm done with them, so now the value of those games is going to go down if they have multiplayer in them and I've used the code. In this case, they are hurting the person that bought it new and not the one who bought it used.

That's not a big enough deal to me though to boycott the games or anything. It's just a small annoyance that will stop me from even trying out the multiplayer in some games if I plan to sell them.
 
Get used to it folks, this is a direct assault on buying used, and it's set to continue.

Doesn't bother me, I've stopped buying used.
 
[quote name='007']I seriously don't understand the outrage here. Gaming is a business, and they make no money from you if you buy it used. With the advent of online gaming, you are now not only giving them no money from a used purchase, you are also continuing you use their resources to play their game online indefinitely. This is an especially important point in the case of EA, as they run their own servers.

I do, I get that whole 'I want cheap games! Grr Argh!' mentality, but this really isn't companies screwing you over. It just isn't. Online play is yet another digital age set-up where no one thought ahead, so it became accepted as a 'right', not a privelage. For a company like EA to run their own servers isn't cheap, and used sales connect users to that system with ZERO BENEFIT for EA. On a practical level, I can't say I blame them.

The bottom line is ALWAYS going to be: If you buy it used, these companies don't give a shit about you. They make ZERO dollars from you. Online is such a huge part of gaming now that it's completely logical that it's the part to hold back. You want to play online, buy it new, or give them $10. Seems simple enough.

Sorry for the rant, but I always see 'OUTRAGE!' over this, but it's just misguided. There's being a cheapass, and then there's being unreasonable.

(Note: this is only speaking about the 'entry fee' model that's popping up, NOT any kind of 'subscription' service that's been rumored. That's a whole other can of worms.)[/QUOTE]

Eh, I only have a problem with it in cases like THQ with UFC 2010 where there were a ton of connection problems and several other online problems. They sold a code for online when their online did not function as advertised.

I have no problem with them selling it seperately for people who buy games used, but if they're going to sell an online pass as a seperate product they should make sure it actually works.
 
[quote name='gameboy280']I for one am simply outraged by the idea of the online pass that EA has created which is starting to cause other companies to look it. Sony has announced they are looking into the online pass as a viable way to increase profits. I will sell my playstation 3 and everything Sony that I own if they push this shit on us gamers like EA has(which I refuse to purchase EA games now no matter the title). I am sick of the how expensive gaming has become over the last 5 - 6 years. And really think of all the shitty games that are being released or the bug filled games.[/QUOTE]


The fact that places are going to an Online Pass model of business does not effect me.

MOST of my games I buy new anyways.
There is this site called Cheap Ass gamer and i use it to find substantial discounts on the games I want to purchase. I usually don't get them the nanosecond they are released because I know within the first month I can get a NEW copy of the game I want for LESS than I can buy a USED copy through a place like Game Stop.

So, exactly how is the "online pass" model of business effecting all these people who are outraged at it's existance and are going to sell off all their worldly belongings in order to stage a one man protest that is going to go unheard and laughed at?

It doesn't.

If a game you want has an online mode and is going to have an online pass. Wait 2 weeks and buy it for $20 cheaper than it was the day it came out.
 
I'll never pay to play a game online. I don't game much online anyway as I'm more of a single player guy. I keep Xbox Live Gold, but that's more for the Netflix, and I'll probably drop it if I eventually replace my current Blu Ray player with one with Netflix built in.
 
This really isn't that big of a deal.

Most new games drop in price so fast these days that I buy more new than used. And when I do buy used from now on, I'll just have to wait a bit longer so the used price drops enough to off set online costs. Honestly, I can't see them charging more than $5-10 per game for online activation.

This was bound to happen sooner or later. GS is making way too much money from used games for the industry not to notice.
 
Well since Sony's maybe come to the realization that consumers want to actually own physical media not only digital content ala psp go. This is one of the only ways for them to cut into the profit void that is used game sales.
 
Meh, the only games I buy used are older titles anyway, so this doesn't affect me. Besides, with the deals going around these days it's easy to find a new release game cheaper than MSRP or with a gift card.

[quote name='gameboy280']I will sell my playstation 3 and everything Sony that I own if they push this shit on us gamers like EA has(which I refuse to purchase EA games now no matter the title). I am sick of the how expensive gaming has become over the last 5 - 6 years. And really think of all the shitty games that are being released or the bug filled games.[/QUOTE]
Overkill much? It hasn't really become that much more expensive than it has been in the past.
 
[quote name='gameboy280']I for one am simply outraged by the idea of the online pass that EA has created which is starting to cause other companies to look it. Sony has announced they are looking into the online pass as a viable way to increase profits. I will sell my playstation 3 and everything Sony that I own if they push this shit on us gamers like EA has(which I refuse to purchase EA games now no matter the title). I am sick of the how expensive gaming has become over the last 5 - 6 years. And really think of all the shitty games that are being released or the bug filled games.[/QUOTE]

Why would you be outraged? Sony or anyone else is doing anything against you personally, or punshing you as a single individual. They are a business, their job is to make money. For companies making money isnt usually a long term goal plan when stock prices depend greatly on investor relations for that company, how much they can sell their stocks for, quartley income meetings and so on. Most companies, especially the bigger ones cant afford to not do anything they can to increase profits as quickly as possible.

In the real world sony, microsoft and so on arent making games and systems because they want to make us happy. They do it purely for money and absolutely no other reason and when making money the name of the game is to make as much as possible. No company is going to say "well guys, we made a billion dollars this year so I think were set till next year so lets stop worrying about making money for awhile".

Sony isnt run by gamers, its run by a board of directors and ceo's that probablly have never played a game. Just like microsoft isnt run by computer guys and gamers.

[quote name='Zerok']Overkill much? It hasn't really become that much more expensive than it has been in the past.[/QUOTE]

And yes it has become more expensive across the board. Look at the 360 for instance you have to buy the console and you have to buy games which are about 60 bucks each. Thats 360 dollars for a system and one game. Then if you want to play online you have to pay for internet access, then you have to buy xbl as a additional cost of course youll want to talk to people in multiplayer so youll have to buy a mic/headset. If you have friends to play with then youll need an extra controller. For your 60 dollar game if you want to play the bonus stuff youll have to cough up more money for DLC and in the case of like fallout youll pay 110 dollars just for the game and its DLC for a single non collector edition game.

Activision is making a trend of selling its pcs games for 60 also when no one else ever did that.

Developers are pimping DLC months before they even release their games that its going to be DLC for.

Almost all new retail prices are 60 which is alot of money for most people, thats on its way to 100 bucks.

Then companies always try and force periphals on gamers like having to buy microsofts brand of over price mic/headset, kinetic for 150, move for 130, nintendo making games that require the wii motion plus so you have to buy one of those also, activisions idea of making gamers pay to play call of duty.

Wasnt to long ago 50 was the top end price on a game but new titles still came out at 40 of good quality often also. But now everything is normally 60 and collectors editions with not much in them are 70 with some going up to 150.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While Kmart and Sears still had decent clearance cycles going, I could rely on them to buy games NEW for very little. But since clearance at both stores has seemingly dried up in favor of new game sales with discount coupons I'll probably just find myself doing like I did last gen, which is playing the same 1-3 games I really like excessively while waiting for price drops to the lowest possible MSRP price for any games I want to try.

Otherwise I'll just buy games I want to try and don't give a flying fuck about the online for from Gamestop used during their B2G1 sales or from Blockbuster/Gamefly once they hit a really low used price.

Online play isn't really the be all end all for me. I play around in the online modes of maybe 2-3 games right now and the rest that I have that have online mp have people who play the shit 24/7 which puts me at a severe disadvantage and less likely to wanna play.

So the pay to play dealie doesn't really affect me.

The only thing that really annoys me(besides DLC day one after paying $60 for a fuckin' game in the first place:bomb:)is the industry's push away from local co-op and towards all online co-op.
 
[quote name='gargus']And yes it has become more expensive across the board. Look at the 360 for instance you have to buy the console and you have to buy games which are about 60 bucks each. Thats 360 dollars for a system and one game. Then if you want to play online you have to pay for internet access, then you have to buy xbl as a additional cost of course youll want to talk to people in multiplayer so youll have to buy a mic/headset. If you have friends to play with then youll need an extra controller. For your 60 dollar game if you want to play the bonus stuff youll have to cough up more money for DLC and in the case of like fallout youll pay 110 dollars just for the game and its DLC for a single non collector edition game.

Almost all new retail prices are 60 which is alot of money for most people, thats on its way to 100 bucks.

Then companies always try and force periphals on gamers like having to buy microsofts brand of over price mic/headset, kinetic for 150, move for 130, nintendo making games that require the wii motion plus so you have to buy one of those also, activisions idea of making gamers pay to play call of duty.

Wasnt to long ago 50 was the top end price on a game but new titles still came out at 40 of good quality often also. But now everything is normally 60 and collectors editions with not much in them are 70 with some going up to 150.[/QUOTE]
Console plus the extra controller and games has always been par for the course. Internet access shouldn't be included because, nine times out of ten, people already have internet access, and I highly doubt the ones who don't are going to get it just to play online. Including internet in the cost is like saying you have to include the cost of the tv that you have to play it on, but unlike the tv internet access is totally optional.

DLC is also completely optional, as are the peripherals you mentioned. Peripherals that are required to play certain games have also been around for a while, it's just that there's more of them now. And most Xboxes come with a headset.

As for game prices, I'm curious to know where you heard that MSRP was on the track to $100, because I haven't heard that. The only thing that's really changed with game prices is the $10 jump from last generation and that games now have a uniform price for new releases. I mean, I remember paying like $70 IIRC for Ocarina of Time when it was released. Game prices used to be weird.

Edit: I'm not trying to say the cost of gaming hasn't risen, because it obviously has, just that it hasn't risen as much as some people try and act like it has.
 
And you have to buy a couch to sit on! And food so you can live to play the games! Oh and a car to get to work to make money for the games! Dang, gaming is expensive!

Look, gaming is a privilege, not a right. It's also not that expensive. 300.00 for a xbox is pretty cheap for what you get. If you're that much on a budget, buy some 10.00 games.
 
[quote name='Zerok']
Edit: I'm not trying to say the cost of gaming hasn't risen, because it obviously has, just that it hasn't risen as much as some people try and act like it has.[/QUOTE]

Yep. I think many just got spoiled because prices had been stable for quite a while. Consoles had mostly been $200 at launch for a few generations (not counting stuff like Neo Geo, 3DO etc.)--think the N64 was even $150 IIRC and most games at $50 for a quite a while as well.

This gen consoles launched between $300-600 depending on console and model, games went up $10 (except for Wii), controllers went up a bit. DLC kind of inflates game prices too I guess--it's optional but a lot of DLC seems like stuff that would have been included in a $50 game last generation. Xbox live costs money for people who want to game online--but there's always the PS3 for those who want free online.

So yeah, costs have gone up, but not super dramatically. Just more of a shock to some since prices had been relatively stable and not increasing with inflation over the years like most other things.

I mean I didn't like the increased console costs. No way I was paying $400 for an X-box or $500-600 for a PS3 as I don't game enough to spend that much money on a console. So I just waited for price drops, and jumped on a bundle deal after the 360 hit $300 for the 20gb. $60 games also suck, so I seldom buy new and get most things off Goozex as I have no need to play most games near launch. Point being, it's still easy to game without spending a lot of money--especially if you frequent this site!
 
[quote name='eddie291']I thought Sony was one of the first publishers to do this with the latest Socom game?[/QUOTE]

You would be correct. They did this in Jan. with SOCOM 3 on the PSP. And the online pass for that one cost $20 by itself.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep. I think many just got spoiled because prices had been stable for quite a while. Consoles had mostly been $200 at launch for a few generations (not counting stuff like Neo Geo, 3DO etc.)--think the N64 was even $150 IIRC and most games at $50 for a quite a while as well.

This gen consoles launched between $300-600 depending on console and model, games went up $10 (except for Wii), controllers went up a bit. DLC kind of inflates game prices too I guess--it's optional but a lot of DLC seems like stuff that would have been included in a $50 game last generation. Xbox live costs money for people who want to game online--but there's always the PS3 for those who want free online.

So yeah, costs have gone up, but not super dramatically. Just more of a shock to some since prices had been relatively stable and not increasing with inflation over the years like most other things.

I mean I didn't like the increased console costs. No way I was paying $400 for an X-box or $500-600 for a PS3 as I don't game enough to spend that much money on a console. So I just waited for price drops, and jumped on a bundle deal after the 360 hit $300 for the 20gb. $60 games also suck, so I seldom buy new and get most things off Goozex as I have no need to play most games near launch. Point being, it's still easy to game without spending a lot of money--especially if you frequent this site![/QUOTE]


do people not remember that some games in the snes/genesis era were more than new games today? when street fighter first came out to snes it tru had it cheapest at $84.99, i was going through my older games last week and phantasy star 3 still had the EB sticker on it $61.99. now i realize that all games were not this price but a large number were over $60 during the end of the cartridge era.

the nes originally released for $199.99 in todays dollars that is $393.47. i think we are doing pretty good price wise in gaming. yeah i wish they were still at $50 for a new game, but the prices drop so fast for most now that it doesn't really matter.
 
True, but those games were kind of few and far between. Most NES and SNES games were $50, that I can recall anyway. Just some like Street Fighter, FF3 etc. that were $70-80.

That said, many here don't remember that. A lot of college and high school aged kids who wouldn't have been gaming (or at least buying their own games) in the 8bit and 16 bit generations as they grew up with the N64/PS1 and later consoles. Hell, I'm in my early 30s and I didn't buy my own games until the N64/PS1 (was 18 when the N64 came out), so I was dependent on parents to buy those NES and SNES games as well!
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']True, but those games were kind of few and far between. Most NES and SNES games were $50, that I can recall anyway. Just some like Street Fighter, FF3 etc. that were $70-80.

That said, many here don't remember that. A lot of college and high school aged kids who wouldn't have been gaming (or at least buying their own games) in the 8bit and 16 bit generations as they grew up with the N64/PS1 and later consoles. Hell, I'm in my early 30s and I didn't buy my own games until the N64/PS1 (was 18 when the N64 came out), so I was dependent on parents to buy those NES and SNES games as well![/QUOTE]

same here, i will be 31 on the first, and it would not have been until the ps1 that i bought my own games with a paycheck instead of allowance. but i am still happy that games are only at $60, especially since most drop pretty quickly.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep. I think many just got spoiled because prices had been stable for quite a while. Consoles had mostly been $200 at launch for a few generations (not counting stuff like Neo Geo, 3DO etc.)--think the N64 was even $150 IIRC and most games at $50 for a quite a while as well.

This gen consoles launched between $300-600 depending on console and model, games went up $10 (except for Wii), controllers went up a bit. DLC kind of inflates game prices too I guess--it's optional but a lot of DLC seems like stuff that would have been included in a $50 game last generation. Xbox live costs money for people who want to game online--but there's always the PS3 for those who want free online.

So yeah, costs have gone up, but not super dramatically. Just more of a shock to some since prices had been relatively stable and not increasing with inflation over the years like most other things.

I mean I didn't like the increased console costs. No way I was paying $400 for an X-box or $500-600 for a PS3 as I don't game enough to spend that much money on a console. So I just waited for price drops, and jumped on a bundle deal after the 360 hit $300 for the 20gb. $60 games also suck, so I seldom buy new and get most things off Goozex as I have no need to play most games near launch. Point being, it's still easy to game without spending a lot of money--especially if you frequent this site![/QUOTE]
Controllers went up a bit? To me $25 is a bit more than 'a bit'. Mind you, I do like that the PS3 controllers are wireless and the battery life is pretty good on them. But a $25 spike for adding in Bluetooth and motion controls(SixAxis) and re-adding vibration motors is fuckin' ridiculous.

As for the game prices, save for a streak recently where I bought 3-4 new release titles at launch I mainly buy my games either used or cheaply via clearances or with credit from GS.
 
Wow, a more measured and rational response on CAG to this news than on some websites like Ars Technica and Destructoid. Honestly, it's unfair that you can buy a used game and play online and force the publisher to subsidize your online play (maybe XBL is a different story, I don't know how much of that $50 goes to the servers, etc.).

I've seen a lot of different opinions about this, and there are a few good arguments for why this is a money grab by the publshers/developers:

1) If I sell my game to another person, they're just taking my spot online. I stop playing online and they start playing online, it's a zero sum.

2) They've already sold the game new and this is just double-dipping.

3) I'm selling the game to buy more new games.

Well, take this analogy: let's simplify this and say that a game server costing $100 to maintain for the life of the game (multiply that by whatever number to come to the real cost). Now, if I expect that I will sell 10 games (times whatever multiplier to come to the real amount I think I'm going to sell) at $60, I can spread that $100 out to among all the games I expect to sell, it means that $10 off the top of each game I sell will go towards paying off the server (the rest of the cost for R&D and testing, marketing, and profit, etc., are also factored into the MSRP price); I just need to sell at least 10 games to make up my costs to break even for just the online part.

Now, if I manage to sell only 5 new, and then the rest of the 5 are bought used, then I'm screwed. I only got $50 the cost paid for, and I have to eat the rest (not to mention, I didn't really cover the development and other expenses either).

So, this is why the publshers are doing this. If you buy the game used, they're going to charge you the $10 (from the analogy) that they're losing on the used game sale. It costs them nothing extra if you buy a single player game used, (except the loss of all of their investment in making the game itself). But an online game, they're paying the cost either way, whether it sells or not. It's just not fair for GameStop to grab the cash by strongly urging your customers to buy the game used; and likewise, it's not fair for the publishers to maintain these servers for people who aren't even their own customers, so, they had to devise this scheme. Now, if GameStop would have cut some kind of deal with the publishers to cut them into the equation somehow, we wouldn't be arguing about this. So it will either come down to you getting charged for the online services, if you do not pay your fair share, or only being able to buy it digitally.
 
[quote name='jh6269'] (maybe XBL is a different story, I don't know how much of that $50 goes to the servers, etc.).[/quote]

XBL is peer to peer, no dedicated servers for online gaming. Though I think there area few exceptions (maybe EA games?) that do have dedicated servers.

That said, I do get the need for publishers/developers to encourage people to buy new. I think charging for a core feature like online play isn't a good way to do it. A better way to do this, IMO, is to include codes for DLC in new copies like Mass Effect 2 and Alan Wake due, so you get those for "free" when buying new, but have to pay for the DLC if you buy used.

Core game is there whether you buy used or new, but buying a new copy gets you some add on content that you'd have to pay to download if you buy used. Gives incentive for even cheapasses to wait for price drops/deals and buy new vs. getting a used copy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's only a matter of time before Microsoft follows suit (and possibly even Nintendo). Just about every major retailer is getting into the used games business...Target, Best Buy, TRU, friggin Wal-Mart. They're in the beginning phases now, but just imagine what it'll be like when they get their stuff up and running. New copies will only be selling for as long as used copies stay off the shelves, and with some competitive pricing and other incentives, that could be a very short time.

They definitely need to do something. Incentivize buying new, discouraging buying used, whatever. If they don't, the profitability of a game will rely more heavily on DLC and such, or we might just get games that don't need to sell as much to make a profit.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']XBL is peer to peer, no dedicated servers for online gaming. Though I think there area few exceptions (maybe EA games?) that do have dedicated servers.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'm kind of fuzzy on that. I seem to remember that Halo 2 got pulled from XBL and they closed the servers down or something like that (there was actually a group of people playing as long as possible to keep the session alive). I don't know how it works. There must be some server involved, but I suspect that MS hosts it and not the publisher/developer. Anyway, I'd say that MS has less of a right to charge for online for used games when they're already charging for XBL.
 
[quote name='jh6269']Yeah, I'm kind of fuzzy on that. I seem to remember that Halo 2 got pulled from XBL and they closed the servers down or something like that (there was actually a group of people playing as long as possible to keep the session alive). I don't know how it works. There must be some server involved, but I suspect that MS hosts it and not the publisher/developer. Anyway, I'd say that MS has less of a right to charge for online for used games when they're already charging for XBL.[/QUOTE]

That was a bit different, they pulled the server for Xbox 1 users, which included Halo 2 connections (but was not limited to just Halo 2.) They did so to make changes to the entire XBL platform, which they couldn't do with legacy systems on it which were not upgradeable.
 
Sony has done this with SOCOM and MNR PSP. WKC2 also had a online pass in Japan. EA did it with NBA Live 09 with the player DNA feature. Sega is having an online pass for Phantasy Star Portable 2. Expect more and more publishers to do it.

The thing is, you can still sell games, just hurts the value a bit. The difference is publishers just want a cut in the used profit, or in some cases don't allow those who illegally obtain their copy to play online with those who paid.
 
Personally I think this is a great idea. I don't usually tend to buy used games unless its from a friend who needs some quick cash but the odd time where I do I don't mind forking over a 10 sheet to play a game online, especially if its a game I really enjoy.

I know not everyone is in the same situation as me but up until recently I've been big in to MMO's starting way back when EQ came out then jumping from game to game when the bigger and better game comes out. I'm used to paying 15-20 dollars a month plus the initial cost of the game and sometimes even more depending on how many subscriptions i had active. I know not everyone cares or can afford to play an MMO, but at least they aren't charging 10 dollars monthly for your online pass. As long as its a one time payment per game I am 100% on board with any developer/publisher that wants to charge 10 bucks for the online portion if you buy used.

That's just my opinion anyway.
 
Like others, I honestly don't see the problem here. Game publishers are tired of seeing the used game market generate millions of dollars that they get ZERO part of. If you were in the gaming business, you'd be pretty pissed, too.

Besides, what I find really humorous is that, more often than not, the same people that will cry about, say, GameStop's profits will then turn around and cry about this, too.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']

That said, I do get the need for publishers/developers to encourage people to buy new. I think charging for a core feature like online play isn't a good way to do it. A better way to do this, IMO, is to include codes for DLC in new copies like Mass Effect 2 and Alan Wake due, so you get those for "free" when buying new, but have to pay for the DLC if you buy used.

[/QUOTE]

The problem is GS released their number and really hasnt been hurt by project 10. A lot of the casual gamers or soccer moms probably dont known or care that the used copy is missing a character or a quest. Online gameplay would make a bigger difference.
 
Well on that front it's just a matter of marketing and making people as aware of it as possible.

Otherwise, it's the same with online play. If it's not marketed that it's only free in the new versions, you'll have a lot of pissed off casual games and soccer mom's who are pissed off when they (or their kid) pops in the used game they just bought and they have to pay $10 or whatever more to play online. Which many times would probably bump the used game price above the new game price. Especially for people who pay Gamestop's stupid prices.

Personally, I don't care one way or the other as I don't game much online anyway and would just wait and buy the game new when it's dropped in price if they did such a plan. Same with included DLC--waited and just got Alan Wake for $25 from Dell last week for instance.

So I don't think it's a big deal personally. But I do think they risk pissing off a lot of people if they make online a pay feature in used games--especially if it's not well marketed so people are aware of it.
 
When people find out their copy wont work online, they will either unlock it points or return the used copy.

To me online gaming is the biggest difference this generation. I dont think I would enjoyed Gears of War or Borderland if I didn't get to play it co op with a few buddies.
 
[quote name='62t']When people find out their copy wont work online, they will either unlock it points or return the used copy.
[/QUOTE]

True, if they bought it locally. No return option if they bought it on ebay, craigslist, got it from a trading site like Goozex.

Though I guess people using those outlets are probably less likely to be uniformed casuals etc. and more likely to know about the online pass etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']XBL is peer to peer, no dedicated servers for online gaming. Though I think there area few exceptions (maybe EA games?) that do have dedicated servers.

That said, I do get the need for publishers/developers to encourage people to buy new. I think charging for a core feature like online play isn't a good way to do it. A better way to do this, IMO, is to include codes for DLC in new copies like Mass Effect 2 and Alan Wake due, so you get those for "free" when buying new, but have to pay for the DLC if you buy used.

Core game is there whether you buy used or new, but buying a new copy gets you some add on content that you'd have to pay to download if you buy used. Gives incentive for even cheapasses to wait for price drops/deals and buy new vs. getting a used copy.[/QUOTE]That right there is the problem. Developers/publishers are trying to answer the question of "What should we do to make people buy new instead of used" but instead they should be asking themselves what they should do to make people not want to trade in the game in the first place. Before the use market can begin people have to start buying it new so they need to get these people to just hold onto the game.


Also the free dlc in the box thing isn't really much of a incentive. I can get Alan Wake or Mass Effect 2 off Goozex/Cag, or Gamefly then just buy the free dlc they gave to people who bought it new and I still make off better than someone who bought the game new.




I think the only way to solve this problem is to just make games have enough content and quality to warrant the $60 price tag. Its laughable to see games with so little content like God of War 3 priced the same as somthine like Red Dead Redemption. There are so many short games this gen with little to no replay value that it only makes sense so many people are trading them and/or renting them.
 
[quote name='Sinfulfate']I think the only way to solve this problem is to just make games have enough content and quality to warrant the $60 price tag. Its laughable to see games with so little content like God of War 3 priced the same as somthine like Red Dead Redemption. There are so many short games this gen with little to no replay value that it only makes sense so many people are trading them and/or renting them.[/QUOTE]

Pretty much impossible. Games are all different, and not all games are built to be 50+ hour experiences. Alan Wake, for example, was originally was going to be a game with a far more open world, but the developers decided that they would not be able to present the narrative the way they wanted, so they made it linear. Frankly, I freaking loved the experience I had playing Alan Wake and simply could not see it being some free-roaming game. What works for games like GTA, RDR, and Crackdown won't necessarily work for more narrative-driven games.

And at the end of the day, games are going to be traded in or sold on eBay, no matter how good they are or how much content they have.
 
Yeah, it's impossible. Even if a game is 50+ hours, I'm still getting rid of it after I'm done with it as I'll never replay it and I'm not a collector.

Just a disadvantage of games. For most people they don't have the replay value of a movie or cd or something. I'll buy and keep movies and music as I'll be watching them and listening to them years down the road. I've rarely ever replayed a game.

Including say DLC for free in new games etc. at least gives me an incentive to buy new and then trade that copy via Goozex after I'm done with it, rather than just waiting and getting it off Goozex and then trading it back. At least they get my money in that case.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']Pretty much impossible. Games are all different, and not all games are built to be 50+ hour experiences. Alan Wake, for example, was originally was going to be a game with a far more open world, but the developers decided that they would not be able to present the narrative the way they wanted, so they made it linear. Frankly, I freaking loved the experience I had playing Alan Wake and simply could not see it being some free-roaming game. What works for games like GTA, RDR, and Crackdown won't necessarily work for more narrative-driven games.[/QUOTE] Ya your right games are all different and not all of them are built to be 50+ hours but the problem is the cost. If a game isn't being built to have the amount of content or features as say GTA IV then don't charge me the same price for it. It should work just like it does on XBLA with cheaper XBLA games like Dead Rising Case Zero or Scott Pilgrim vs the World are $5/$10 respectively while games with more depth like Puzzle Quest 2 being $20 or more.

For narrative driven games I think Mass Effect and Dragon age are perfect examples of what a $60 single player narrtive focused game should entale.


And at the end of the day, games are going to be traded in or sold on eBay, no matter how good they are or how much content they have.
Click to expand...
True but the goal is to prolong this as much as possible and being a good game or a long game is a good way to do this. Most games make the bulk of their sales in the first few months so the goal is to make sure people hold on to the game during that period. Its not much of a problem if people are trading in their game or selling it many months or even years after release. The problem is when a week or two after release and lots of people are already trading it in or selling it.
 
Personally, I haven't bought a new game at release since Red Dead Redemption and that was only because ToysRUs had that $25 gift card deal. Its just not worth buying games at $60 anymore knowing that it'll be $40 within a few months and then $20-30 a couple months after that. Have I wanted to play Transformers WfC, Splinter Cell Conviction, Battlefield Bad Company 2, and Crackdown 2? You bet, but these games all come from publishers who have shown time and again that they're gonna drop their prices within months of release, so what's the point of paying the premium?
 
[quote name='Sinfulfate']Ya your right games are all different and not all of them are built to be 50+ hours but the problem is the cost. If a game isn't being built to have the amount of content or features as say GTA IV then don't charge me the same price for it. It should work just like it does on XBLA with cheaper XBLA games like Dead Rising Case Zero or Scott Pilgrim vs the World are $5/$10 respectively while games with more depth like Puzzle Quest 2 being $20 or more.

For narrative driven games I think Mass Effect and Dragon age are perfect examples of what a $60 single player narrtive focused game should entale.


True but the goal is to prolong this as much as possible and being a good game or a long game is a good way to do this. Most games make the bulk of their sales in the first few months so the goal is to make sure people hold on to the game during that period. Its not much of a problem if people are trading in their game or selling it many months or even years after release. The problem is when a week or two after release and lots of people are already trading it in or selling it.[/QUOTE]

I have a couple concerns with that you shared.

1) Mass Effect 2 and Alan Wake can be beaten in approximately the same amount of time. Now you are right to say there will be content unexplored, but at that point it is not a question of quantity, it is a question of how much time the player wants to spend in that world.

2) I am an adult, I have other responsibilities and hobbies, I enjoy games that have a narrative and do not over stay their welcome (Batman: AA, Splinter Cell Conviction and Bioshock 2 all spring to mind). I am not looking for 100 hour epic or a game where I get lost in, because I will just turn it off and put the game back in the case. Value is different for different consumers. If you prefer open world (RDR, GTA 4, and Just Cause 2) great. But I would gladly trade an open world for an engaging 8-10 hour story.

3) Most development costs are not spent on filling in the world, they are spent on developing the infrastructure to support that world. The Producer for Alan Wake was asked why it took 6 years to make the game and if they had not had the stop and starts on the project, could this had been a 2 year development cycle. He responded that he believes the game would have been vastly different and that pieces of the final games can be traced back to that original demo in 2005.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top