Support NeoGAF

[OldJadedGamer]

In an ideal world, consoles would be DD only with Steam-like prices and sales. No more manufacturing and shipping costs, no more retailer markup.

But Steam isn't even safe from this. Look at Portal 2 on launch day, it was the exact same price as the boxed PC copy but with none of those other costs. Why was the Steam version so expensive given that there was no retailer mark up? Publishers will always cave to retailers.

i think you seriouslly need to see those GT interview cause they have worked a lot intoadding lots of stuff and also revamping their engine lighting and other stuffs

Right... "revamping". Tweeking something is way cheaper and faster than building it from scratch.

 

[zoukka]

i think you seriouslly need to see those GT interview cause they have worked a lot intoadding lots of stuff and also revamping their engine lighting and other stuffs

They are PR vids man...

 

[-PXG-]

Or you could just... give a shit about the game on the disk? A radical concept, I know.

Besides which, the whole 'they're taking stuff away!' is just a matter of *perception*.

Yeah, pay $60 for a 10 hour campaign and an online mode I'll play a couple of times. I could buy it used...oh wait....part of the content is locked out, unless I pay more. What you said would make perfect sense if online passes and locked, day one DLC didn't exist.

Anyway, what makes my perception less viable than Sony's or ND's? Why should I put their's in front of mine?

EDIT

I saw your edit:

You mention to just give a shit about what's on the disc. Fine, but let me access everything that's on it then...

 

[OldJadedGamer]

You're still pushing this garbage argument? Publishers aren't going to do something like this that would cost them revenue. All you're arguing is that consumers who only play single player would like to get the game for $50 instead of $60. Of course they would. They'd like it even better if the single player only cost $20. Also not going to happen.

Again, the publishers themselves have put a price on multiplayer gaming. They say it is worth $10 so obviously that means that single player is worth $50 if the total package sold right now is $60. It's simple math.

If you aren't taking up bandwidth that seems to cost so much money... then you shouldn't be paying for it.

 

[Fess]

Do you really think that you're going to make a difference? We've seem how all those boycott stuff tends to work.

Do you think that you're going to make a difference by buying it new?
It's only $60. They probably have dollar bills on their toilet rolls and wipe their ass with your $60 when they take a shit.

The thing is, if it feels right for You to buy a game new instead of used then it will make a difference for You to do so. Right?

Still, in the end your $60 won't matter, it'll just be +$60 on their huge pile of cash. Just like my bojcott will just be -$60 on the same pile of cash.

And in the end I'll be playing this game just like you. The difference is that because of their decision to use online pass my money won't end up on their toilet roll anymore. lol-worthy or not, it still feels good.

 

[Taij]

Yes I understand there are "master" severs that handle matchmaking, but those aren't nearly as costly as running dedicated servers.

So, what's the justification? Honestly, I doubt there is any. They just want to make an extra few bucks off GameStop's second hand sales.

Ok, I'll be baited into one more comment.

There is justification. Just because thing A costs less than thing B doesn't mean that thing A is free. Maintaining servers and paying for bandwidth costs money. There is justification. Accept it or don't.

Does it cost $10 per person over the average life of them playing multiplayer? No. So as an added benefit the publisher and developer get some amount of money from the second hand market. There is the second justification.

I'm sorry but it's a business and there are a lot of people losing money in this business. You don't see the justification in the online pass, well i don't see the justification in getting all bent out of shape about an online pass.

If you buy the game new and the pass doesn't affect you at all. If you buy the game used then I assume you are buying it used to save money, a typical example like Gamestop maybe sells the game for $5 less than new, so they now need to sell it for $15 less to make it worth buying. If you don't play online then you just saved an extra $10. If you do play online then you buy for the same used price as before. If gamestop chooses not to sell it for cheaper then you go look for a deal someplace else.

It feels like you're upset that gamestop is getting screwed in this deal more than the consumer.

Regardless there is business justification for these passes, so until companies are losing money on them, or there is a better solution, they will not go away. Sorry.

 

[Tron 2.0]

If Uncharted 1 was compelling content at a compelling pricepoint, how is Uncharted 3 not?

I was responding to the general statement that used game sales aren't "fair" to the developer.

Second, you could argue that a great number of people didn't find Uncharted 1 to be compelling at $60, since a not small portion of its final sales came from bundles.

 

[-PXG-]

Do you think that you're going to make a difference by buying it new?
It's only $60. They probably have dollar bills on their toilet rolls and wipe their ass with your $60 when they take a shit.

The thing is, if it feels right for You to buy a game new instead of used then it will make a difference for You to do so. Right?

Still, in the end your $60 won't matter, it'll just be +$60 on their huge pile of cash. Just like my bojcott will just be -$60 on the same pile of cash.

And in the end I'll be playing this game just like you. The difference is that because of their decision to use online pass my money won't end up on their toilet roll anymore. lol-worthy or not, it still feels good.

Yep.

I'll happily spend my $60 else where, towards a game, towards a company that doesn't do this shit.

Done and done.

 

[squidyj]

Please support your favorite game developers....

I wonder how many developers argue that they should thank their fans with a little free dlc now and then? Oh that's right, none of them.

Except for the ones that do.

CD Projekt Red
Valve

Those are the two off the top of my head.

 

[Corto]

You're still pushing this garbage argument? Publishers aren't going to do something like this that would cost them revenue. All you're arguing is that consumers who only play single player would like to get the game for $50 instead of $60. Of course they would. They'd like it even better if the single player only cost $20. Also not going to happen.

It's a valid argument though. If the publisher values the MP component of the game as a service that costs 10$ independent of the disc/"good" then the customer should be allowed to buy that game without the service with the final price adjusted accordingly. It will never happen as you said because that would mean lost revenue, that only emphasizes what this measure really is, a money grab.

 

[cgcg]

You too, ND? NOOoooo. So what happens if you need to get a replacement PS3? You have call them up? That's going to suck.

 

[-PXG-]

Ok, I'll be baited into one more comment.

There is justification. Just because thing A costs less than thing B doesn't mean that thing A is free. Maintaining servers and paying for bandwidth costs money. There is justification. Accept it or don't.

Does it cost $10 per person over the average life of them playing multiplayer? No. So as an added benefit the publisher and developer get some amount of money from the second hand market. There is the second justification.

I'm sorry but it's a business and there are a lot of people losing money in this business. You don't see the justification in the online pass, well i don't see the justification in getting all bent out of shape about an online pass.

If you buy the game new and the pass doesn't affect you at all. If you buy the game used then I assume you are buying it used to save money, a typical example like Gamestop maybe sells the game for $5 less than new, so they now need to sell it for $15 less to make it worth buying. If you don't play online then you just saved an extra $10. If you do play online then you buy for the same used price as before. If gamestop chooses not to sell it for cheaper then you go look for a deal someplace else.

It feels like you're upset that gamestop is getting screwed in this deal more than the consumer.

Regardless there is business justification for these passes, so until companies are losing money on them, or there is a better solution, they will not go away. Sorry.

I know they're in business to make profit. I have nothing against that. I just don't like the feeling of being nickled and dimed over things that are already relatively expensive.

All I can, as a consumer, and just say no and take my business else where. As much as they have the right to make money, I am equally entitled to refuse to give mine to them.

 

[Corto]

I know they're in business to make profit. I have nothing against that. I just don't like the feeling of being nickled and dimed over things that are already relatively expensive.

All I can, as a consumer, and just say no and take my business else where. As much as they have the right to make money, I am equally entitled to refuse to give mine to them.

Exactly. They are a business not a charity, we are customers not patrons.

 

[iamshadowlark]

Right... "revamping". Tweeking something is way cheaper and faster than building it from scratch.

The lighting engine is not "revamped" at all. They built it from scratch. They rebuilt alot of other systems too. Look at that GT vid.

 

[NBtoaster]

Yes I understand there are "master" severs that handle matchmaking, but those aren't nearly as costly as running dedicated servers.

So, what's the justification? Honestly, I doubt there is any. They just want to make an extra few bucks off GameStop's second hand sales.

Seems like valid justification to me.

They should make money from used sales.

 

[squidyj]

You too, ND? NOOoooo. So what happens if you need to get a replacement PS3? You have call them up? That's going to suck.

...So the pass isn't tied to your account?

 

[Uno Venova]

So do plus subscribers also have to pay a 10 dollar pass?

 

[Momo]

haha oh wow, i dont sell games so it hardly affects me, but online passes are still some class a bullshit

 

[cgcg]

...So the pass isn't tied to your account?

I don't know. Someone here said it's tied to your system.

 

[EloquentM]

ITT used game buyers denounce themselves as crybabies. Everyone who is complaining in this thread was going to buy the game used anyways, so it's not like this is anything worth arguing about in the first place.

 

[LowEndTorque]

But Steam isn't even safe from this. Look at Portal 2 on launch day, it was the exact same price as the boxed PC copy but with none of those other costs. Why was the Steam version so expensive given that there was no retailer mark up? Publishers will always cave to retailers.
.

eh, Portal 2 day 1 price is more exception than rule. In general, buying PC games over Steam is far, far more affordable than buying new (or even used) console games at brick & mortar retail.

I still stand by my belief that a well implemented DD only system with affordable pricing and good sales would be a win/win for gamers and for publsihers/developers/platform-holders as long as it isn't monopolized and 3rd party digital retailers are allowed to participate.

 

[Corto]

...So the pass isn't tied to your account?

Yes, in the PS3 it works like DLC. You can download it and use it on 5 systems with one account. People are already sharing them just like it happens with PSN games.

I don't know. Someone here said it's tied to your system.

Yes. As in every other account on your system is able to use that pass. If you get a game from UK, create an UK account, activate the pass on that account every other account on that system should be able to use it. Lik appears to have a different experience though...

 

[Radec]

I don't care about the MP. I'm not paying $60 for a 8-10 hour offline experience.

Getting this bitch used or on sale. Hate me all you want.

well thay explains alot.

 

[alr1ght]

ITT used game buyers denounce themselves as crybabies. Everyone who is complaining in this thread was going to buy the game used anyways, so it's not like this is anything worth arguing about in the first place.

I have bought exactly 1 used game (from gaf) this gen. Nice try though.

 

[Pctx]

Tell you what Naughty Dog, I will buy the game new when it hits $20 bucks on greatest hits in 6 months or so... long after the online community has gone away and no longer matters. Game companies doing this crap is getting annoying.

 

[BruiserBear]

Yep.

I'll happily spend my $60 else where, towards a game, towards a company that doesn't do this shit.

Done and done.

and what exactly will you be proving to them again?


To respect people who don't pay them for their games in the first place?

 

[EloquentM]

I have bought exactly 1 used game (from gaf) this gen. Nice try though.

So now you're planning to screw ND, Sony, and their business tactics with a strategy of your own?

 

[NullPointer]

Tell you what Naughty Dog, I will buy the game new when it hits $20 bucks on greatest hits in 6 months or so... long after the online community has gone away and no longer matters. Game companies doing this crap is getting annoying.

Yep. Same here.

 

[Tellaerin]

I'm sorry but it's a business and there are a lot of people losing money in this business. You don't see the justification in the online pass, well i don't see the justification in getting all bent out of shape about an online pass.

[...]

Regardless there is business justification for these passes, so until companies are losing money on them, or there is a better solution, they will not go away. Sorry.

Some game publishers are losing money. Some are making money. That's true of most industries. Strangely, I don't see any other industry going to these heroic lengths to claim a cut of secondhand transaction revenue the way game publishers are, though. If they're not making money, they look for other ways to stay profitable - ones that aren't rabidly exploitative and anti-consumer.

A 'better solution' might begin with lowering game prices across the board, so that people wouldn't feel the need to sell/trade in the games they've finished to help finance their new purchases. I think they'd more than make up for per-unit losses in volume. But publishers aren't willing to take a chance like that, not when they can just paygate off part of the game so that anyone who buys it used has to make a separate payment to them to access it.

 

[zoukka]

and what exactly will you be proving to them again?

That not all "fans" eat all the shit you squeeze at their general direction?

 

[Sullichin]

Yep. Same here.

Uh.. this game won't be $20 in 6 months new, and the online community won't be dead either.

 

[EloquentM]

Tell you what Naughty Dog, I will buy the game new when it hits $20 bucks on greatest hits in 6 months or so... long after the online community has gone away and no longer matters. Game companies doing this crap is getting annoying.

UC2 has had a thriving MP community after 2 years. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

[cpp_is_king]

You too, ND? NOOoooo. So what happens if you need to get a replacement PS3? You have call them up? That's going to suck.

Why would you have to call them up? Your online pass is tied to your PSN ID, not your actual hardware.

 

[JudgeN]

Yes I understand there are "master" severs that handle matchmaking, but those aren't nearly as costly as running dedicated servers.

So, what's the justification? Honestly, I doubt there is any. They just want to make an extra few bucks off GameStop's second hand sales.

Here is a great example post explaining why P2P isn't as free as people make it out to be.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=31696810&postcount=764

There is alot of technology behind P2P, not saying i agree with the online pass.

 

[BruiserBear]

Tell you what Naughty Dog, I will buy the game new when it hits $20 bucks on greatest hits in 6 months or so... long after the online community has gone away and no longer matters. Game companies doing this crap is getting annoying.

Uncharted 3 is going to be $20 in 6 months? lol


Try a year, or more.

That not all "fans" eat all the shit you squeeze at their general direction?

and what exactly is this "shit" you speak of? How does this personally affect you?

 

[cpp_is_king]

Uncharted 3 is going to be $20 in 6 months? lol


Try a year, or more.

Uncharted 2 is still $27.99 on Amazon. The MSRP is $30, lol. And it's been out for multiple years.

 

[alr1ght]

So now you're planning to screw ND, Sony, and their business tactics with a strategy of your own?

Sony is not a charity. They compete for my business.

 

[-PXG-]

So do plus subscribers also have to pay a 10 dollar pass?

Sony's not a charity, right?

There's your answer.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

It's a valid argument though. If the publisher values the MP component of the game as a service that costs 10$ independent of the disc/"good" then the customer should be allowed to buy that game without the service with the final price adjusted accordingly. It will never happen as you said because that would mean lost revenue, that only emphasizes what this measure really is, a money grab.

Right, we all know it's a sham but if you treat the developer comments as the truth then what I'm saying makes 100% sense. It just goes to show just how silly their comments are. Uncharted 2 was a HUGE success... all without an online pass so this "poor us" comments about MP bandwidth on a title that has a smaller MP community than most games is laughable.

UC2 has had a thriving MP community after 2 years. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

UC2 doesn't require an online pass. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

[NullPointer]

Uh.. this game won't be $20 in 6 months new, and the online community won't be dead either.

I can wait.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Right, we all know it's a sham but if you treat the developer comments as the truth then what I'm saying makes 100% sense. It just goes to show just how silly their comments are. Uncharted 2 was a HUGE success... all without an online pass so this "poor us" comments about MP bandwidth on a title that has a smaller MP community than most games is laughable.

It was a huge success in that it had tons of people playing it. Was it a huge success financially? I mean, do you have access to their financial statements so you know what costs they incurred with MP?

As a studio, I'm sure they're not hurting, but if the MP component in isolation is not profitable, then the only options are either kill it or make it so.

 

[EloquentM]

It should've been an offline pass.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

It was a huge success in that it had tons of people playing it. Was it a huge success financially? I mean, do you have access to their financial statements so you know what their costs are?

So you are saying UC2 was a failure? Do you have access to their financial statements?

 

[Facism]

Don't worry, I'll be sure to PM you with all the details of how it was worth to spend my money on this amazing game since you're not going to get it because of a stupid online pass. Lol...

Please don't. And you're right that the online pass is stupid.

 

[Tellaerin]

I can wait.

Thanks to your AV, I just heard that in Dr. Manhattan's voice when I read it.

 

[BruiserBear]

I can wait.

and you probably weren't buying it day one anyways, so your threats are hollow. AMIRITE?


I genuinely don't believe a single person in this thread that suggests they were going to buy this game day one, but now they're going to wait 6-12 months to buy it cheap, or wait until they can buy the game used, when they're probably only going to save $10 off the MSRP anyways, and then they'll have to pay $10 for an online pass anyways.

 

[SolidSnakex]

UC2 doesn't require an online pass. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

So, do you think online passes kill communities? If not then his point stands.

 

[cpp_is_king]

So you are saying UC2 was a failure? Do you have access to their financial statements?

No and no. I'm not sure where you go the idea that I thought it was a failure, and I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was claiming to have more info about their financials than you.

But I edited my posted to help clarify, feel free to re-read.

 

[conman]

The real reason behind Online Passes seems like it has very little to do with the used market. It seems to have much more to do with the increased costs of development/marketing. The market isn't growing fast enough to support increased costs and no one can justify raising the cost of a game, so all the big publishers are looking for ways to add more revenue.

Are used game sales cutting into potential revenue? Sure. Does it cost money to run servers? Sure. ND aren't lying when they say they need to make money to support those things. But the real problem is relatively stagnant growth overall in the traditional games marketplace. Used game sales (like pirates, hackers, and invaders from mars) is just a scapegoat and is only a small part of a much larger problem.

IMO Online Passes are a crappy stopgap measure (like taping a plastic bag over a broken car window). Someone's going to have to figure out a much more viable solution. There are just too many problems with it. It's inelegant, clunky, and like DRM, it adversely affects legitimate consumers.

 

[zoukka]

and what exactly is this "shit" you speak of? How does this personally affect you?

This is just another thing where the product loses value and the customer is more restrained. Publishers always try to nudge these things forward and it is we who decide what flies and what doesn't.