HELP Stop Online Passes in USED Video Games!

I wish they didn't exist either, but that's like trying to tell Blizzard to have WoW go free to play with 10+ million subscribers. (The Starter edition is just free crack to get you addicted).

If you can get potentially $10 for every used game sale when you see $0 from used game sales (outside of DLC) why would you make multiplayer free? From a business stand point this makes no sense.

Love,
Bobby Kotick

P.S. Why haven't we adopted this idea yet for Call of Duty?
 
just buy the games new at a discount problem solved. you think this is bad, and i for one do, it will only get worse over time. who knows what we will have to pay for next gen. i really hate the dlc season passes as well a few have been ok i guess but when they control what price each thing is is it really a value?
 
I have to side with EA and Ubisoft on this one. You can't compare the price of a car to a video game. It was a bad move of them to say it's for maintaining online servers, because they shouldn't have to defend themselves to begin with.

Not matter how you slice it buying a used copy of a game is a loss sell to both the publisher and the developer. The online pass system is a good bandage until retail doesn't exist.

In a perfect world the online pass would tie the full game to your account. The disc would be nothing more than for installing or streaming the content on the disc to save space. HDD space is more expensive to me right now than anything.

I think in the future we will see better forms of digital ownership for the consumer that makes both parties happy. Better prices, handling of DLC and more strength of the bond between consumer & developer are all things that will come with full digital distribution.

I wouldn't be surprised if we made the leap to fiber optic streaming than a full console cycle of digital downloads.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't buy used so this doesn't effect me and I don't have a problem with the manufacturers trying to get a few dollars out of the used market (i.e. gamestop).
 
[quote name='hankmecrankme']99% of my game purchases are from Steam, so I'm a sucker already.

I'd be happy if GFWL would go away. Where's my petition for that?[/QUOTE]

Remember when they tried to charge for that shit?
 
I buy used all the time and I have found that this really isnt a problem. Most of the time its super easy to find the used game still with an unused code. A good percentage of gamers just dont play online so all you need to do is spend an extra minute looking for used copies with an unused code.
 
It's their games, they have every right to do this if they want. If you don't like it, either don't buy it or don't buy it used. Nothing is accomplished about how you think it's unfair they can't make a profit on your used games.
 
Just buy it used and don't play online problem solved.

i like passes and hope they don't change it to something worse.
 
You can usually find a new game cheaper than used at GameStop... I purchased Resistance 3 for $10 new when GameStop sells it for $25 used.

Solution? Be a cheapassgamer and buy new on the cheap! :p
 
The only thing that is a bigger waste of time than signing an online petition is spreading the word about an online petition. Criticizing online petitions, however, is a productive use of time.
 
[quote name='Kilvas09']
Not matter how you slice it buying a used copy of a game is a loss sell to both the publisher and the developer. [/QUOTE]Not necessarily. Just because I buy a discounted used game does not mean I was willing to purchase a new copy had the used copy not existed.

If publishers want to stop used game sales they can. Just stop putting the games on discs. Either shit or get off the pot. If consumers want to stop online passes, they can. Just stop buying games that pull that shit.

But gamers these days are more likely to make a stink about Lara Croft's potential kinda-sorta rape scene and some sensitive bitch journalist being insulted by some ARMA III PR asshole than anti-consumer practices like online passes.
 
You want to protest Online passes, here's what you do...Gather up as many people as possible to the cause, and pick out a game that uses online passes. Then everyone goes out and buys the game...but they do not open it. Instead, they wait a week or whatever, and return the game en masse. When asked why, they specifically mention Online Passes. Get enough people, retailers get pissed off, and the chain starts. Petitions...well, they don't really piss off anyone.
 
Kind of sad when Call of Duty is the shining example of how to do something right in the industry.

I no longer buy EA games because they sell games on XBLA that have the servers shut down, which is the biggest fuck-the-buyer scumbag move I've ever seen this generation. Only a matter of time before they get into "buy an online pass for servers that are shut down" territory. It's not like some random guy going into Gamestop is going to know what servers are on and offline.

Vote with your wallet. It won't change anything either, but at least it's more effective than signing a petition.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='KaneRobot']Kind of sad when Call of Duty is the shining example of how to do something right in the industry.

I no longer buy EA games because they sell games on XBLA that have the servers shut down, which is the biggest fuck-the-buyer scumbag move I've ever seen this generation. Only a matter of time before they get into "buy an online pass for servers that are shut down" territory. It's not like some random guy going into Gamestop is going to know what servers are on and offline.

Vote with your wallet. It won't change anything either, but at least it's more effective than signing a petition.[/QUOTE]

The minute CoD doesn't sell x million copies day 1 is the same day Activision announces online passes. Only reason it isn't done now.
 
[quote name='Salamando3000']You want to protest Online passes, here's what you do...Gather up as many people as possible to the cause, and pick out a game that uses online passes. Then everyone goes out and buys the game...but they do not open it. Instead, they wait a week or whatever, and return the game en masse. When asked why, they specifically mention Online Passes. Get enough people, retailers get pissed off, and the chain starts. Petitions...well, they don't really piss off anyone.[/QUOTE]

Yep only way this will get noticed.
 
I'd like to get Petitions for:

DRM of Any Kind

Also more specific petitions wouldn't hurt:

Securom
GFWL
Install Limits
Proprietary Developer/Publisher DRM Schemes (Shame on you!)
Signing up for account before getting to play it, even in single player
Ubisoft DRM .... The Spawn of Satan himself!
Always Online DRM even for single player
Origin .. No EA. NO. I. Will. Not. Use. Your. Store. Not only do i hate your guts, but i want to buy my games on Steam. So kindly stop being assholes and drop the DLC only being on Origin cause you "want your customers to have a better experience" bullshit.

Think online passes are bad? Welcome to PC gaming buddy. Where every major publisher is trying to drive us up the walls so we can go out and get consoles and they never have to port(badly) another console game again. Thanks.
 
[quote name='Spokker']The only thing that is a bigger waste of time than signing an online petition is spreading the word about an online petition. Criticizing online petitions, however, is a productive use of time.[/QUOTE]

:lol:
 
Honestly, online passes don't bother me that much. I understand that developers/publishers have to find ways to encourage people to buy new as games have huge budgets and they get nothing out of used sales.

I don't think online passes are the best way to do that though. I think doing things like Mass Effect 2 did with giving people who buy new the first few DLCs free is a better way than disabling key features like online play in used versions.

But I get the logic and need to encourage new sales to keep making money and keep making the big budget blockbuster games I enjoy most so I don't really oppose online passes either.

It also doesn't affect me much as anything I want to play online (which isn't much these days--but this was true when gaming online a lot in the past) I'll buy new at or around launch so I can play when the community is most active and not be too far behind the curve and be a newbie up against people with 100s of hours of experience.
 
Anything that increases the amount of time between "I put a disc in my console" and "I actually start playing the game" I could do without. One of the most annoying experiences this console cycle was waiting for the 600MB Catwoman DLC to download before I played Arkham City.
 
I do agree with that. But in a generation or two all games will be download only so that will be the norm. Hopefully internet speeds will be upped by then to help though.

And some of that's on the console companies since things download much faster on Xbox Live than PSN.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Honestly, online passes don't bother me that much. I understand that developers/publishers have to find ways to encourage people to buy new as games have huge budgets and they get nothing out of used sales.[/QUOTE]

This is not the consumers' problem and no one should ever think it is. It's been the law for over 100 years in the US that purchasers of a copyrighted work are free to dispose of it as they choose. Game companies don't get to infringe that right just because they are stupid and have a terrible business model. Maybe if their big budget games were worth playing for more than 8 hours, more people would buy them for full price and hang on to them for a while.

That said, used games are for suckers anyway. The shelf life of new games is nothing except for the a handful of super popular AAA titles like Call of Duty or Madden.
 
I'm not saying anything should change legally. People should be able to sell/trade physical games they buy.

Just saying I get where they're coming from. And people do need to understand if they want series to keep going, developers to stay in business that they need to support them monetarily. That doesn't have to mean paying $60 at launch. Even buying new a few months later when most games have dropped/went on sale for $20-40 is still better in that sense as you're still supporting the developer.

Anyway, I have no problem with people buying used. I've made a lot of use of Goozex this gen before it started sucking this year (don't get matched up for anything any more). I mostly buy new these days and sell games on Amazon after beating them. So I'm not buying used anymore--just no need with only grabbing 5-10 games a year and making real money these days.

But I still take advantage of the used market to resell games since I don't replay and I'm not a collector.I just also don't have much problem with things like online passes, free dlc with new purchases etc. as I understand that developers have to find a way to make money. And I do make effort to always buy my favorite games/series from my favorite developers new at launch to show support.
 
I recently bought Twisted Metal used and the online pass and even the code for a copy of Twisted Metal Black were both unused. Same story goes for when I bought Uncharted 3 used.

Lucked out, I guess.

(or you can buy used from Gamefly and be guaranteed a online pass since they just mail out discs and keep the cases tucked away)
 
I completely agree with the notion behind this petition, however with the way Capitalism works, they'll continue to use the Online Passes until they stop making them money... I'll sign it anyway later today.

I really hate the notion of Online Passes, because it's the same thing as charging someone extra for the keys to a used car they just bought-- it's just silly. Maybe my philosophy is a tad off here, but it just seems like the video game companies are trying to get more money out of the people who can't afford to buy all their games new, people like me who frequent the Used Game Bin at Gamestop. It sucks to have to deal with this because it's cutting into my achievements, but either way I refuse to buy them unless I actually really want to play the game online! [IE: F1 2011]
 
[quote name='japatten']I completely agree with the notion behind this petition, however with the way Capitalism works, they'll continue to use the Online Passes until they stop making them money... I'll sign it anyway later today.

I really hate the notion of Online Passes, because it's the same thing as charging someone extra for the keys to a used car they just bought-- it's just silly. Maybe my philosophy is a tad off here, but it just seems like the video game companies are trying to get more money out of the people who can't afford to buy all their games new, people like me who frequent the Used Game Bin at Gamestop. It sucks to have to deal with this because it's cutting into my achievements, but either way I refuse to buy them unless I actually really want to play the game online! [IE: F1 2011][/QUOTE]

Used cars have wear and tear. Video games do not.
 
[quote name='Kilvas09']I have to side with EA and Ubisoft on this one. You can't compare the price of a car to a video game. It was a bad move of them to say it's for maintaining online servers, because they shouldn't have to defend themselves to begin with.

Not matter how you slice it buying a used copy of a game is a loss sell to both the publisher and the developer. The online pass system is a good bandage until retail doesn't exist.

In a perfect world the online pass would tie the full game to your account. The disc would be nothing more than for installing or streaming the content on the disc to save space. HDD space is more expensive to me right now than anything.

I think in the future we will see better forms of digital ownership for the consumer that makes both parties happy. Better prices, handling of DLC and more strength of the bond between consumer & developer are all things that will come with full digital distribution.

I wouldn't be surprised if we made the leap to fiber optic streaming than a full console cycle of digital downloads.[/QUOTE]

I agree. Though i wish the online passes and such didn't have expiration dates. Or content gets pulled all together a la the saboteur
 
[quote name='Big McLargeHuge']I'd like to get Petitions for:

DRM of Any Kind

Also more specific petitions wouldn't hurt:

Securom
GFWL
Install Limits
Proprietary Developer/Publisher DRM Schemes (Shame on you!)
Signing up for account before getting to play it, even in single player
Ubisoft DRM .... The Spawn of Satan himself!
Always Online DRM even for single player
Origin .. No EA. NO. I. Will. Not. Use. Your. Store. Not only do i hate your guts, but i want to buy my games on Steam. So kindly stop being assholes and drop the DLC only being on Origin cause you "want your customers to have a better experience" bullshit.

Think online passes are bad? Welcome to PC gaming buddy. Where every major publisher is trying to drive us up the walls so we can go out and get consoles and they never have to port(badly) another console game again. Thanks.[/QUOTE]

Steam needs to be added to this list. Why do people never think of Steam as DRM?

Back on topic: Online passes don't bother me unless their for added single-player content. It's rarely hard to find unused online passes and I don't mind having to be connected an online account to play online, I have to be online anyway.
I really don't like Single-player passes (or any Single-player DLC). I want to be able to play all Single-player content without needing to connect to any online account or download anything additional.
Anything that has extra single-player content should also rerelease the game (ala Batman Arkham City GOTY or L.A. Noire Complete) so I can play a fully featured single-player game without needing to connect to any servers (which could be taken down or fail).
 
[quote name='PenguinMaster']Steam needs to be added to this list. Why do people never think of Steam as DRM?[/QUOTE]

Because Steam is lightweight and doesn't have much in the way of restrictions. It's the "right" way to do DRM.
 
[quote name='JasonTerminator']Because Steam is lightweight and doesn't have much in the way of restrictions. It's the "right" way to do DRM.[/QUOTE]

One person using the entire account at a time is a hell of a restriction. Plus their terms of service even expressly ban multiple people from using the same account. None of the other ones mentioned (nor PSN or XBL) have that restriction.

Having to connect to Steam's servers every time you want to play a game unless you specifically activate off-line mode (while online) is even worse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's a fair trade-off. The publishers/developers make nothing off used game sales, but they are certainly entitled to it. We're already getting decent prices by purchasing used copies, so what's $10 more to access multiplayer? I'd much rather pay that then have to purchase digital copies at bloated prices, which is the foreseeable result if they don't charge for season passes/multiplayer access. With these payments everyone involved gets an opportunity for the fair share of what they want, such is the beauty of capitalism.
 
[quote name='PottyPops']I think it's a fair trade-off. The publishers/developers make nothing off used game sales, but they are certainly entitled to it.[/quote]

100 years of US law says otherwise

With these payments everyone involved gets an opportunity for the fair share of what they want, such is the beauty of capitalism.
Click to expand...

Game companies are double dipping, not getting their fair share. Used games don't increase the number of people using a server or online features because the prior purchaser no longer has the game.

The "online costs" excuse rings really hollow when they eliminate online features of games entirely, too
 
That's funny, because it was about 100 yrs ago when Intellectual Property laws began to surface. The game companies aren't making money off a measly disc, the software contained on the disc is their intellectual property and they have every right to make money off it. Not making anything from used game sales is comparable to pirating, from the developers point of view.
 
Missed this thread when it first popped up.

[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm not saying anything should change legally. People should be able to sell/trade physical games they buy.

Just saying I get where they're coming from. And people do need to understand if they want series to keep going, developers to stay in business that they need to support them monetarily. That doesn't have to mean paying $60 at launch. Even buying new a few months later when most games have dropped/went on sale for $20-40 is still better in that sense as you're still supporting the developer.
[/QUOTE]

Let me make an extreme example, Kingdoms of Amalaur: Reckoning. The Dev 38 Studios was gone quickly, so buying it new has no purpose other than to make the publisher EA money? There will be no sequel (or MMO) heck even the future DLC was cancelled. There have been plenty of other cases where a whole Dev team, or Dev company were laid off/shut down after a game releases. So buying new sends the message this is ok to do? (Devil's advocate for people who say buying the game used hurts "the game industry")

[quote name='ElwoodCuse']100 years of US law says otherwise

Game companies are double dipping, not getting their fair share. Used games don't increase the number of people using a server or online features because the prior purchaser no longer has the game.

The "online costs" excuse rings really hollow when they eliminate online features of games entirely, too[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Xbox360 already charges $60/year for online, now add online pass on top, what?

Used games have always been around, and make the industry flourish. Who would take a chance at a game for $60, or even $30 if they could never sell it back? Many people also sell their old used games to afford the new game just released, an endless cycle.

The reason PC games are $10 cheaper (or more) at release, drop faster in price, and have amazing deals that are way better than console sales are because of resale value. PSN and XBLA pricing shows that $15 is the limit, and most wait for them to go on sale still to for $5-$10. A lot of those digital downloads offer just as much (OR MORE) playtime/content than a full retail release. You know those $60 retail single player games with a 4-8 hour campaigns? If there was no used market, those games would sell so much less, I'm sure. If "the game industry" wants to get rid of used games, we will not accept the current price of games.

Heck I don't accept them now (aside Skyrim and Borderlands 2, which I found $12 off pre-order) paying at most $30 for a game rarely, and waiting for them to hit $10-15 usually. I'll gladly take my 6 used games to your 1 new game. Although Newegg and Bestbuy have been having amazing deals lately on NEW games. I have had no reason to buy used other than Gamefly sales. And Gamefly games come with the online pass/dlc codes.
 
I'm actually in full support of Online Passes. There's been so much talk about eliminating used gaming entirely, that if these things are going to save it, I'm willing to compromise.

It's a good way for the developer to make some extra money off of used gaming. I'd prefer they not have to be there... but it seems like they're necessary.

There's FAR worse things going on in the gaming industry, like disc-locked content. That's just the scummiest shit ever.
 
Sooo...you can't sell your old "used" books now because it's the author's "intellectual property"? No. That issue HAS been going on for hundreds of years, heh.

Disc-locked content is scum thing to do. I remember games like Soul Calibur 2 where unlocking a character through gameplay felt like I achieved something, not paying $5 more bucks for it. Or bonuses like Olaf from Rock and Roll Racing. What if "The Lost Levels" in Super Mario All-Stars was a paid DLC unlockable?

Online passes is just an excuse to slowly lean and ease customers into digital only downloads. Swear there is a study somewhere that says over 70% of PS3/Xbox360 aren't even hooked up to the internet.

A used game purchase doesn't hurt "the game industry" at all imo, because that purchase wouldn't have been made new anyway. It was only bought because it was cheaper and to give the game a shot. I'm not talking about $55 gamestop used games, that's a crime too. Would you pay $60 for Game of Thrones on release? Or pay $10 from Gamefly used version. Not every game is AAA title, and a lot will be sold back due to dissatisfaction, done with it, or to afford more new games. A cycle that needs to be there or many of us would go broke from $60 games piling up.

I bought a PS3 when Slim first came out. The system finally reached a price I thought was reasonable, fuck $600. I had some game catching up to do. I bought Uncharted 1 (there was no dual pack at the time, and no retailer had it for sale new) used for $10 to try it out. Loved it, then bought Uncharted 2 GOTY on release, and Uncharted 3 vanilla on release. Just 1 personal example of how used games help the industry. Not to mention I could trade in older games to afford the new games on release.

I'm not really against online passes for multiplayer games. I AM against online passes for Batman: Arkham City Catwoman SINGLE PLAYER missions. And I am against what online passes stand for: "Oh, we need to add multiplayer to make more money". Example: God of War 4: Ascension. That is bogus. Taking away dev time to tack on a dumb multiplayer that some may play a few times then realize they should have put that effort into the single player that built the franchise. I am against taking away the used game market though. Just look at the digital prices on XBLA/PSN of older games to see why.

Considering the last gen systems (Wii still is and probably WiiU also) were $50 a game, I don't think "the console game industry" is ready to change. As they upped the MSRP, upped Xbox LIVE cost, upped the price of map packs for shooters, etc. They are too greedy to lower prices to reflect a non-used game market.

Look to Steam to show how a non-used game market can work.
 
Online passes make sense from the perspective of paying for the servers, etc. You can say that the original buyer is no longer using that and just transfers his/her usage to the new person; however, that activity is guaranteed to spike by that new person who just got the disc (whereas the original buyer's usage slowly decreased over time).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top