Support NeoGAF

[charlequin]

Actually, they are:
Bulletstorm - $42.99
Homefront - $42.99

Interesting! They weren't doing this for Tiger. I guess I am mistaken about that.

I believe that with all online passes it saves it to the gamertag and specific console basically the same thing with all DLC, so anyone that uses the console even with another gamertag should be able to play online with no issues.

So you're saying that with every publisher who's implemented a system like this, I get a double-bound license such that on the first console I use, any account can play online, and on my account, I can play online on any console? Even on PSN where this isn't how DLC works normally? Want to document that for me?

Besides being too simplistic, it's fundamentally shortsighted: damaging the used market has sizable consequences on the new market as well, as sellers end up with less cash they can spend on new products. If the number of sellers is wide enough to make the used market a concern (by definition, used games only exist if someone bought them in the first place), then damaging the purchasing power of said sellers would be affecting a wide enough number of customers to create potentially even bigger problems in the future.

Right. The way it works now, the used business filters a huge amount of money from low-price customers (people who buy $5-15 used games) back into the pockets of high-price customers (via trade-ins) and thereby subsidizes their "day one!" habits. If you remove used sales, and therefore trade-ins, a lot of people will move from buying every new game they want day one to getting only the ones they want the most or would definitely keep (since they can't subsidize the cost by getting rid of the games they're finished with anymore.)

There are ways you could design the market to actually capture all those low-price dollars directly, but it'd involve a system where games aren't all $60 at launch and where they drop in price for reasons other than bombing or making the selective Greatest Hits lineup. Without pricing changes like those, destroying the used market actually takes away cash from new purchases.

Gamestop, the savoir of our gaming industry. All hail Gamestop!!!

One doesn't have to support Gamestop to oppose these policies. I certainly don't -- Gamestop is a terrible business and makes the gaming hobby much worse. The problem is that, with consoles sold at zero margin and games not nearly profitable enough at retail to make up the difference, all the mom-n-pop game stores and even the less-shitty chains have been driven out of business and crappy Gamestop is all we have left as a specialty retailer.

 

[Kintaro]

That's not the next logical step because any company that would do that with there game is gonna have the game fail, if you think that's the next step than I don't even know what to say but it's just not gonna happen and I just can't comprehend how anyone can even think that.

There was a time where I believed that when you bought a game, you got a complete product. You got all of the characters or maps or guns or whatever planned for the game. If you got more, developers gave them to you for free.

There was a time where I believed that online gaming would always be free. Then Xbox Live came along. Now people pay $60+ for a year. Now people pay $10-15 for maps. Now people pay $5 for characters. Now people pay $5 for costumes. Now people pay to play peer to peer online. Now people have to pick and choose between 4-5 different sets of DLC before they even buy the game!

So, is withholding online for a fee really out of the realm of possibility? No. It is not. If Call of Duty did it. Then a Bad Company did it. Then GTA did it. So on and so forth, it would become the norm.

Gamers have already shown that they will pay to play. Sooner or later, someone will test them and this forum will be disappointed to find out the results.

 

[shintoki]

DD era cannot come fast enough IMO.

If you're a developer or consumer on consoles, probably best not to wish for it.

 

[WickedLaharl]

haha you guys are funny. Have fun not playing MK9!

i look forward to playing MK9

Spoiler

when gamefly ships me a copy.

 

[mentalfloss]

I think this might negatively the affect online market as a whole. Considering there are people who are somewhat curious about online gameplay, but not entirely convinced, a $10 mark up might scare them away or convince them to wait and buy the game used (without paying the additional 10 bucks). That in turn will stunt growth, ensuring the online userbase will not grow beyond those willing to pay the extra cash.

 

[fernoca]

What I don't get is that many of the ones that "don't like the practice", basically agree that if the game costed $10 (or so) less; they'll have no problems. They quickly jump into the "well, I'll buy cheaper later"; camp (except a few extremists that say that they won't buy the game..ever..).

But releasing the game for $10 less or you buying the game cheaper down the road; the game still includes an online pass. That $20 copy of the game you just bought after waiting; you know "to show them"; still needs an online pass. So, IF you decide to sell it; you still need to keep that in mind and the practice is the same (the one buying that copy you owned, still needs an online pass).

Is like the Yakuza 4 example I said earlier (about DLC/unlock key in new copies only; even when it's advertised in the cover as "bonus content"); seems some of the ones complaining don't have a problem with the actual practice, but that "feel" they'are suddenly paying more and they want a discount for that. And that they complain, because it's "the hot topic", more than because of the actual practice.

Or the ones that just won't buy any games from that publisher, because they do that practice with most of their games; I mean. I can understand not buying yearly releases specifically, like Madden that do. But, not buying Dead Space 2?, Crysis 2?, Portal 2?; because other EA games included an online pass? When EA releases Mirror's Edge 2 with (or without) an online pass of sort; are this same people not going to buy the game?

"This sucks, but if it's $20 cheaper day one!!"; is not the best way to get your point and get others to "join your cause".

There are those that have actual reasons, worries about this; like the multi-console sharing, or those that rent games for the most part. But is like some buy games, only with the mindset that they mightwill sell it, in under a year.

Which is another thing. This (Mortal Kombat) game will sell, and probably will sell a lot. So, this game won't be rare; at all. The moment you decide to sell, you'll have to sell it for really cheap too (online pass or not), because if you're going to sell it in a few months for $40, $50; people in general are going to rather get a new copy; because every store will have copies...and they can even go to Gamestop, grab an used copy,play it for a week, and get a refund back. (Gamestop used games policy allows for full refunds of used games if returned in 7 days)

 

[Yasae]

But they made a good product and with a ton of content...at least what we've all seen and tried so far.

I think everyone who says "Just make a good product!" needs to actually make a good product before they can understand what that statement means (i.e. nothing.)

 

[Lothars]

So you're saying that with every publisher who's implemented a system like this, I get a double-bound license such that on the first console I use, any account can play online, and on my account, I can play online on any console? Even on PSN where this isn't how DLC works normally? Want to document that for me?

.

Well with any online pass I have ever used did exactly that, the last one that it happened with is Bulletstorm but it was the same type of thing, the one's that may be the exception is EA Sports, I am not sure if it just unlocked it in the game for my EA account but at least a majority unlock it for gamertag and system like most DLC.

 

[thoughtspeak]

Taking the piss?

Yeah that's the price on a newly traded in title.

my original stance was that that used games should have a significant markdown because well, yunno... they are used.

But obviously i havent been paying attention this gen, the same nefarious practice of selling games close to RRP had crept over here too. I typically buy games that are at least 3 month old so i never really noticed.

Its fcuking ridiculous if you ask me. If its only a couple of pounds/bucks cheaper why buy used at all?

 

[Jocchan]

My only issue with this whole thing is that the devs already got the money for the used copy.

Person A) Buys game new. Beats it / gets tired of it, trades it in for a different game.
Person B) Buys game used, percentage of cash goes towards recouping person A's trade-in value and rest is store profit.

The devs already got their share of the money for that particular game.

Used game services are not the devil, and seeing some folks almost proclaim it as such is laughable. I've bought plenty of used games, and even purchased a fair share of DLC for them.

With that said, I'm of the mind that anyone who buys a used copy that is only $5 cheaper than a retail copy should pay for the pass if they feel like going online with it because shame on them for not just paying the extra $5 and getting the retail version to support the developers.

As far as online goes, it's true that a cycle of resales for the same copy increases the amount of online time (different users would try the online portion, which over time increases costs).

But it's also true that this is largely overblown: if the online is good and the community is healthy, then users will tend not to resell the game and to play it online for longer. If the game is not good, or the community tends to die down quickly to move on for the next big release, even a long cycle of resales wouldn't do much: used buyers would try the game a few times, and then never again. Also, over time the value of used copies goes down and the percentage of used buyers also selling used games is not 100%, which means used sales tend to go down too over time.

So, the difference in used bandwidth is not always as clear cut as you'd think.

 

[jetjevons]

Criticism is a necessary part of any discussion, especially if constructive. Not criticizing means damaging any chance of a healthy discussion that goes beyond unilaterally accepting the topic at hand, and giving the false perception of universal agreement. It's not a coincidence if such an approach is always suggested by those agreeing with the topic at hand, it's a convenient way to remove any opposition instead of putting effort into a mature discussion.

Good point, well stated. I still (and will always) support the developer/pulbisher's ability to make money from used game sales.

 

[Lothars]

There was a time where I believed that when you bought a game, you got a complete product. You got all of the characters or maps or guns or whatever planned for the game. If you got more, developers gave them to you for free.

There was a time where I believed that online gaming would always be free. Then Xbox Live came along. Now people pay $60+ for a year. Now people pay $10-15 for maps. Now people pay $5 for characters. Now people pay $5 for costumes. Now people pay to play peer to peer online. Now people have to pick and choose between 4-5 different sets of DLC before they even buy the game!

So, is withholding online for a fee really out of the realm of possibility? No. It is not. If Call of Duty did it. Then a Bad Company did it. Then GTA did it. So on and so forth, it would become the norm.

Gamers have already shown that they will pay to play. Sooner or later, someone will test them and this forum will be disappointed to find out the results.

But it's not gonna be the norm and those 5 dollar characters or 10-15 dollar maps might have never been in the game in the first place and would have never came to the game without DLC, of course not all DLC is good but you can't say automatically the content that is charged for when there's a good chance it probably just wouldn't have existed.

I would say it is completely outside the realm of possibility and it's just not gonna happen, if it doesn't happen it's not gonna do anything and that game will fail.

 

[NaM]

Fuck this. They lost the little respect they had for their customers.

 

[Jocchan]

Right. The way it works now, the used business filters a huge amount of money from low-price customers (people who buy $5-15 used games) back into the pockets of high-price customers (via trade-ins) and thereby subsidizes their "day one!" habits. If you remove used sales, and therefore trade-ins, a lot of people will move from buying every new game they want day one to getting only the ones they want the most or would definitely keep (since they can't subsidize the cost by getting rid of the games they're finished with anymore.)

There are ways you could design the market to actually capture all those low-price dollars directly, but it'd involve a system where games aren't all $60 at launch and where they drop in price for reasons other than bombing or making the selective Greatest Hits lineup. Without pricing changes like those, destroying the used market actually takes away cash from new purchases.

I agree completely.

One doesn't have to support Gamestop to oppose these policies. I certainly don't -- Gamestop is a terrible business and makes the gaming hobby much worse. The problem is that, with consoles sold at zero margin and games not nearly profitable enough at retail to make up the difference, all the mom-n-pop game stores and even the less-shitty chains have been driven out of business and crappy Gamestop is all we have left as a specialty retailer.

I agree. It's not a coincidence if mom-n-pop stores are on the verge of extinction, while new GameStop stores open up all the time.

 

[jetjevons]

If you're a developer or consumer on consoles, probably best not to wish for it.

Why?

 

[ACH1LL3US]

I Not that $10 will break the bank, but I don't support this practice, so I'll vote with my wallet and not buy any online pass games. The problem is that this hobby is full of people who will bow down and take whatever the pubs feed them.

lol... good luck with your NOBLE crusade buddy!

Sadly it will be all for naught as this is the future and I 100% behind it.

 

[Jocchan]

Good point, well stated. I still (and will always) support the developer/pulbisher's ability to make money from used game sales.

They do when the game is bought new, and they do when the seller uses the money he gets from selling it to buy the sequel.
EDIT: And they do again when the used buyer ends up liking the game, and buys the sequel too.

 

[lifa-cobex]

What I don't get is that many of the ones that "don't like the practice", basically agree that if the game costed $10 (or so) less; they'll have no problems. They quickly jump into the "well, I'll buy cheaper later"; camp (except a few extremists that say that they won't buy the game..ever..).

But releasing the game for $10 less or you buying the game cheaper down the road; the game still includes an online pass. That $20 copy of the game you just bought after waiting; you know "to show them"; still needs an online pass. So, IF you decide to sell it; you still need to keep that in mind and the practice is the same (the one buying that copy you owned, still needs an online pass).

Is like the Yakuza 4 example I said earlier (about DLC/unlock key in new copies only; even when it's advertised in the cover as "bonus content"); seems some of the ones complaining don't have a problem with the actual practice, but that "feel" they'are suddenly paying more and they want a discount for that. And that they complain, because it's "the hot topic", more than because of the actual practice.

Or the ones that just won't buy any games from that publisher, because they do that practice with most of their games; I mean. I can understand not buying yearly releases specifically, like Madden that do. But, not buying Dead Space 2?, Crysis 2?, Portal 2?; because other EA games included an online pass? When EA releases Mirror's Edge 2 with (or without) an online pass of sort; are this same people not going to buy the game?

"This sucks, but if it's $20 cheaper day one!!"; is not the best way to get your point and get others to "join your cause".

There are those that have actual reasons, worries about this; like the multi-console sharing, or those that rent games for the most part. But is like some buy games, only with the mindset that they mightwill sell it, in under a year.

Which is another thing. This (Mortal Kombat) game will sell, and probably will sell a lot. So, this game won't be rare; at all. The moment you decide to sell, you'll have to sell it for really cheap too (online pass or not), because if you're going to sell it in a few months for $40, $50; people in general are going to rather get a new copy; because every store will have copies...and they can even go to Gamestop, grab an used copy,play it for a week, and get a refund back. (Gamestop used games policy allows for full refunds of used games if returned in 7 days)

The problem lies with the fact that people are being forced into one single option.
As I said in an earlier post,

I'm really hard up for cash atm. If I want to buy a game, I have to REALLY consider my price budget after getting through bills, overdrafts etc.
I always manage to put a little away for a game coming up but I have to think about what game is going to last me for the next few months.

I purchased BFBC2 last January second hand. I thought the MP would last me a short while (and it has) but low and behold I'm still locked out of parts of the game.

I almost feel like I'm being punished because I'm broke atm.

Don't get me wrong, It's great when developer's put incentives out to get fan's to purchase there games day one.
But this is not the case.
It's punishing people (who otherwise wouldn't be able to purchase it brand new) with an ultimatum.

The main problem I've noticed is how people can't understand how second-hand games actually HELP the gaming industry.

 

[Lost Fragment]

No sir, I don't like it. It's unfortunate that used game stores (supposedly) screw over publishers, and in turn, publishers screw over consumers.

That said, I feel like the affect of the "they're diminishing the resale value of the game I buy!" argument is overblown and people argue that more out of principle than anything (not that it's not still a valid argument). In practice, people who rent (2-day trial? Does anybody actually not rent for weeks at a time these days?), play on multiple consoles, or want to take their game to someone else's house are going to be more affected by practices like these.

Still buying the game because I'm looking forward to it and the online pass system isn't going to affect me since I'm not going to be playing on multiple consoles, and if I take it to a friend's house, it's not gonna be to play online. But it's still sad to see a system like this implemented in a game I'm looking forward to. Is there really no better way for publishers to get a piece of the used game market?

 

[alr1ght]

lol... good luck with your NOBLE crusade buddy!

Sadly it will be all for naught as this is the future and I 100% behind it.

Excellent rebuttal. I understand why the pubs do it, but consumers actually supporting it is completely baffling.

 

[LosDaddie]

In all fairness, Gamestop sells games with online passes for $47.99 and if you have their card it's 43 bucks. Which isn't bad by any means.

Yup, and if you're patient enough, GS is always running some kind of used game purchase and/or trade-in deals of the week. I was able to get $21 for my NCAA Football 11 (yes, I used the Online Pass) just yesterday because they are running an extra 40% trade-in for X360 games.

 

[_Xenon_]

Why is it a bad thing? It seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

[Kintaro]

But it's not gonna be the norm and those 5 dollar characters or 10-15 dollar maps might have never been in the game in the first place and would have never came to the game without DLC, of course not all DLC is good but you can't say automatically the content that is charged for when there's a good chance it probably just wouldn't have existed.

Perhaps, but now we will never know. In the past, those maps weren't in the game yet...somehow they were made available for free. Crazy.

I would say it is completely outside the realm of possibility and it's just not gonna happen, if it doesn't happen it's not gonna do anything and that game will fail.

We will see. Saying this as a definite in this day and age is silly. Anything goes. You are telling that people wouldn't pay to play CoD? Bull. Shit. Were you one of those guys who thought MMOs would never work because of a monthly fee? lol

 

[Christine]

Right. The way it works now, the used business filters a huge amount of money from low-price customers (people who buy $5-15 used games) back into the pockets of high-price customers (via trade-ins) and thereby subsidizes their "day one!" habits. If you remove used sales, and therefore trade-ins, a lot of people will move from buying every new game they want day one to getting only the ones they want the most or would definitely keep (since they can't subsidize the cost by getting rid of the games they're finished with anymore.)

There are ways you could design the market to actually capture all those low-price dollars directly, but it'd involve a system where games aren't all $60 at launch and where they drop in price for reasons other than bombing or making the selective Greatest Hits lineup. Without pricing changes like those, destroying the used market actually takes away cash from new purchases.

This is exactly right. A useful lens through which to view profit is that it reflects the value of your operations to the other financial entities you interact with. The systemic problem with used game sales is that the value of the service of moving games from consumer to consumer is so high in relation to the value of actually producing games. Online tickets are probably addressing the wrong part of the equation - rather than attempting to undermine the value of games moving between consumers, publishers should attempt to increase the value consumers perceive and receive from game production.

 

[fernoca]

Don't get me wrong, It's great when developer's put incentives out to get fan's to purchase there games day one.
But this is not the case.
It's punishing people (who otherwise wouldn't be able to purchase it brand new) with an ultimatum.

The main problem I've noticed is how people can't understand how second-hand games actually HELP the gaming industry.

Many of us understand, many developers and publishers do so.
Heck, a few devs/pubs have even come out and openly said that with this practice, they can even get "pirates" to pay something to play the game. Others that used games get people into buying prospective sequels.

The problem is, that some people feel that the publishers "owes them", even if they buy the game used. Nearly every game manual (at least of the games I have) explicitly mention that any warranty, problem, etc. that they cover; is only provided to the original consumer that purchased that product. (Basically: No online pass? Sorry. No exclusive content inside? Sorry. Disc doesn't work? Sorry)

Yet, people expect that if the used copy they just bought, doesn't come with an online pass; that the one that made it/published it owes to send them an online pass, for free. But they don't. If anything, Gamestop is the one that owes that person, since Gamestop sold the game as "including everything".

Heck, I even had a few problems with Nintendo and a Wii I owned, because since I didn't had a receipt, I couldn't provide actual proof that I was the original/sole owner of the console. Yet I understood, and didn't went around boycotting Nintendo; even when I bought the Wii new, at launch.

And it's also the contradictions many have too. "I'll boycott EA and their online passes, but Battlefield 3: DAY ONE!!!"

Is like the Yakuza 4 example I've said. When people decide to sell the game, as used..they'll need to sell it for cheap since the advertised bonus content was in a card and that person won't have access to it. Are they going to sell it for really cheap because advertised content can't be unlocked normally? Is that person on his/her right to go and complain to Sega if said code is not inside or appears as used? or the complain should be directed to the one that sold the game to them? Does this translate into boycotting future Sega release? future Yakuza releases too?

 

[ACH1LL3US]

Excellent rebuttal. I understand why the pubs do it, but consumers actually supporting it is completely baffling.

I have nothing against it. It effects me NONE. It will not effect alot of consumers, except those that go buy the game used and find out they have to pay $10 to play online.

Oh and also those gamers doing a crusade against online passes like yourself.

To pass up a potentially fun game because its against your logic to how a game should be presented to consumers in regards to online passes is just not clicking with me, I don't get it.

 

[shintoki]

Why?

Closed off platforms. Where the entry fee is several billions worth of R&D+Marketing. Nor would I invest faith into MS' or Sony's business practices to be anything but harmful when they do create the monopoly over sales. Unless there is restructure, I see little good on the console side.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

But it's not gonna be the norm and those 5 dollar characters or 10-15 dollar maps might have never been in the game in the first place and would have never came to the game without DLC, of course not all DLC is good but you can't say automatically the content that is charged for when there's a good chance it probably just wouldn't have existed.

I would say it is completely outside the realm of possibility and it's just not gonna happen, if it doesn't happen it's not gonna do anything and that game will fail.

but a good amount of times it's already found on the disc before hand. You remember that whole dlc "unlocking key" debacle? Yeah that never ended.

 

[TheAtomicPile]

Well, I guess I can add this one to my bargain-bin waiting list. Won't take long anyway.

 

[charlequin]

"This sucks, but if it's $20 cheaper day one!!"; is not the best way to get your point and get others to "join your cause".

My cause isn't some deep-seated and powerfully righteous matter of absolute principle; it's irritation that I'm being asked to pay the same price for a worse product. I am entirely willing to accept a product that's worse in some specific way if I'm getting a discount for my trouble.

Essentially: I'm fine with hitting up the used customer for a little extra cash. (Not screwing them over in a more aggressive way, but this idea is fine.) I'm okay with putting pressure on Gamestop to change their business practices (although, again, publishers have created the Gamestop monster with their own choices over the years so I'm not outrageously sympathetic.) I'm basically not okay with any solution that causes inconvenience or loss of value to people buying the game new, and I think if the system does that, the publisher should throw in some extra value to make up for it.

Well with any online pass I have ever used did exactly that, the last one that it happened with is Bulletstorm but it was the same type of thing, the one's that may be the exception is EA Sports, I am not sure if it just unlocked it in the game for my EA account but at least a majority unlock it for gamertag and system like most DLC.

Okay. Anyone else want to back this up for me with additional data? How does Tiger '12 (or some non-EA game using a system like this) work on both 360 and PS3? Does it fall afoul of either of my use cases?

 

[Barkley's Justice]

i have no problems with online passes.

my only gripe is it's a stop-gap for the inevitable all-digital future. i think console manufacturers need to get over it and allow day-and-date digital releases with physical releases on their network services.

 

[lifa-cobex]

Many of us understand, many developers and publishers do so.
Heck, a few devs/pubs have even come out and openly said that with this practice, they can even get "pirates" to pay something to play the game. Others that used games get people into buying prospective sequels.

The problem is, that some people feel that the publishers "owes them", even if they buy the game used. Nearly every game manual (at least of the games I have) explicitly mention that any warranty, problem, etc. that they cover; is only provided to the original consumer that purchased that product. (Basically: No online pass? Sorry. No exclusive content inside? Sorry. Disc doesn't work? Sorry)

Yet, people expect that if the used copy they just bought, doesn't come with an online pass; that the one that made it/published it owes to send them an online pass, for free. But they don't. If anything, Gamestop is the one that owes that person, since Gamestop sold the game as "including everything".

Heck, I even had a few problems with Nintendo and a Wii I owned, because since I didn't had a receipt, I couldn't provide actual proof that I was the original/sole owner of the console. Yet i understood, and didn't went around boycotting Nintendo.

And it's also the contradictions many have too. "I'll boycott EA and their online passes, but Battlefield 3: DAY ONE!!!"

I like Yakuza 4 example I said. hen people decide to sell the game, as used..they'll need to sell it for cheap since the advertised bonus content was in a card and that person won't have access to it. Is that person on his/her right to go and complain to Sega? or to the one that sold the game to them?

OK I'm not quite sure how Gamestop works over the the pond with you guys.

From what I can gather you'r saying Ganestop pretty much lie to you guys and just fuck you over?
From what you just posted, No the developer's don't owe you shit. It's Gamestop.

The way it work's here is quite simple.

-You trade game in and you ether get so much cash of another game or you trade for cash but you will get less (for obvious reasons)

-Retailer marks it up as second-hand (sticker) and depending on how old or popular it is depends on how much cheaper it is.
However it is never them same or greater price as a new game.

 

[alr1ght]

I have nothing against it. It effects me NONE. It will not effect alot of consumers, except those that go buy the game used and find out they have to pay $10 to play online.

Oh and also those gamers doing a crusade against online passes like yourself.

Or people with family
Or people with friends

 

[fernoca]

My cause isn't some deep-seated and powerfully righteous matter of absolute principle; it's irritation that I'm being asked to pay the same price for a worse product. I am entirely willing to accept a product that's worse in some specific way if I'm getting a discount for my trouble.

Essentially: I'm fine with hitting up the used customer for a little extra cash. (Not screwing them over in a more aggressive way, but this idea is fine.) I'm okay with putting pressure on Gamestop to change their business practices (although, again, publishers have created the Gamestop monster with their own choices over the years so I'm not outrageously sympathetic.) I'm basically not okay with any solution that causes inconvenience or loss of value to people buying the game new, and I think if the system does that, the publisher should throw in some extra value to make up for it.

Which is why I said "This sucks, but if it's $20 cheaper day one!!", kind of attitude.
You and other's do have some excellent reasons; but look at what TheAtomicPile just said. Because of this "announcement", he will buy the game when it hits bargain bins (i.e. for cheap).

That's a contradiction, simply because that bargain bin edition also has an online pass. How does that in any way puts pressure in publishers into not releasing games with online passes? Heck, many people wait for bargain bin prices for many games without them.

OK I'm not quite sure how Gamestop works over the the pond with you guys.

From what I can gather you'r saying Ganestop pretty much lie to you guys and just fuck you over?
From what you just posted, No the developer's don't owe you shit. It's Gamestop.

The way it work's here is quite simple.

-You trade game in and you ether get so much cash of another game or you trade for cash but you will get less (for obvious reasons)

-Retailer marks it up as second-hand (sticker) and depending on how old or popular it is depends on how much cheaper it is.
However it is never them same or greater price as a new game.

Well, Gamestop has a few pending lawsuits because of it.
They don't lie and clearly label the games as used, just that they don't usually tell people about said "cards/passes" (even ones that said it in the box).

So people buy the game, go play it, are welcomed with a "Pay $10 to play online message", then call the publisher because "they can't get online", then said they got the game used, and then go to Gamestop and return the game.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Already decided I would only be renting this game when I saw talk of DLC before the game is even out. This just solidifies my decision. So my Gamefly rental period will be shortened since the online trial is only 2 days long, oh well. Still $60 + tax I saved.

Love publishers that want to fuck up the value of my games because of the used market while they also have deals with Gamestop for said game. Show some balls and tackle the real issue instead of just screwing over your consumers.

 

[Apath]

Like i stated earlier, if you are buying used from gamestop for $5 less your an idiot.

But that doesn't mean used games are bad, just the gamestop model needs to go.

I just have to chime in and say that this is laughable. Why wouldn't you pay $5 less for the same exact thing sans plastic wrapping? The only reason is to support publishers. So why is it that it's not okay for people to 'boycott' big publishers because "they don't owe you anything", but then I should turn around and spend $5 more just for their sake? Shouldn't it also be that I owe them nothing, if they owe me nothing?

And lol@people calling others cheap bastards for not spending $60 on every video game that comes out.

You are a hypocrite though. You said you still bought Gears 2 even though the new version came with 5 maps the used one didnt have. So right there, Epic has segmented the online community by separating gamers into groups that did have the maps and gamers that didnt. How was the used game market not hurt by that? Used gamers could not play with gamers who bought the game new with those maps unless they paid an extra fee.

Either you do not know what a hypocrite is or you misread my post. I was stating that I am not blindly against all anti-consumer behavior. I used Gears of War 2 as an example of denying used buyers content, but at a more acceptable to me level. Throwing in throw-back maps to Gears 1 sounds like a creative idea to entice used purchasers to buy new. Maps in a game are not a major part of it. Had MK9's playpass merely given access to a handful of maps or the promise of maps in the future, I'd have no qualms.

It's not black and white like you would seem to think. And I'd only be a hypocrite if I released a game that denied used buyers content, which I have not.

 

[fernoca]

Already decided I would only be renting this game when I saw talk of DLC before the game is even out. This just solidifies my decision. So my Gamefly rental period will be shortened since the online trial is only 2 days long, oh well. Still $60 + tax I saved.

Love publishers that want to fuck up the value of my games because of the used market while they also have deals with Gamestop for said game. Show some balls and tackle the real issue instead of just screwing over your consumers.

They've been been planning and talking about DLC characters for over 2 years and displayed it openly across the multiple E3 demos last year; so is not like it was a big secret neither a big revelation.

Don't know how the confirmation (and pictures)of the 2 characters that will be part of the first batch, suddenly made people not get the game. Even when they always promised nearly every character from the MKI through 3 games (and they did), and the 2 characters announced: 1 is new (Skarlett), the other one was from MK5 (Kenshi).

 

[bone_and_sinew]

Pre order exclusive bonus per store, already planned DLC, exclusive console (kratos) character , now possible online pass...

Whats missing on the shit pile ?

Consolized pc port and no server list in multi, matchmaking only.

 

[ACH1LL3US]

Or people with family
Or people with friends

If $5 or $10 is going to effect you and your family that much... I would imagine buying ANY game is not a good idea.

Fact is, if this online pass was not an issue, you would gladly buy it for $60 new. So I fail to see for you personally why this is going to now effect your family and livelyhood.

 

[alr1ght]

If $5 or $10 is going to effect you and your family that much... I would imagine buying ANY game is not a good idea.

Fact is, if this online pass was not an issue, you would gladly buy it for $60 new. So I fail to see for you personally why this is going to now effect your family and livelyhood.

$10 is not going to break the bank. $100 games wouldn't either, but should I just accept that and gladly grab my ankles? If you have 2 kids plus yourself, that $60 game is now $80.

 

[thoughtspeak]

I just have to chime in and say that this is laughable. Why wouldn't you pay $5 less for the same exact thing sans plastic wrapping? The only reason is to support publishers. So why is it that it's not okay for people to 'boycott' big publishers because "they don't owe you anything", but then I should turn around and spend $5 more just for their sake? Shouldn't it also be that I owe them nothing, if they owe me nothing?

Because the act of buying used game should offer more than $5 discount.

If your only saving $5, your really just being a cheapskate.

 

[lifa-cobex]

Well, Gamestop has a few pending lawsuits because of it.
They don't lie and clearly label the games as used, just that they don't usually tell people about said "cards/passes" (even ones that said it in the box).

So people buy the game, go play it, are welcomed with a "Pay $10 to play online message", then call the publisher because "they can't get online", then said they got the game used, and then go to Gamestop and return the game.

Ahh i see what you'r getting at now.

 

[Apath]

Because the act of buying used game should offer more than $5 discount.

If your only saving $5, your really just being a cheapskate.

I should be able to save more than $5, so because I do not go shopping around for the biggest discount but instead settle for a $5 discount I'm a cheapskate? I'd say you're an idiot for spending $5 more just for the sake of it. These things can go both ways.

 

[Fantasmo]

The problem is, that some people feel that the publishers "owes them", even if they buy the game used. Nearly every game manual (at least of the games I have) explicitly mention that any warranty, problem, etc. that they cover; is only provided to the original consumer that purchased that product. (Basically: No online pass? Sorry. No exclusive content inside? Sorry. Disc doesn't work? Sorry)

Yet, people expect that if the used copy they just bought, doesn't come with an online pass; that the one that made it/published it owes to send them an online pass, for free. But they don't. If anything, Gamestop is the one that owes that person, since Gamestop sold the game as "including everything".

That's the thing though. They do owe me simply because I have a sense of entitlement. And it's not like it's a bad thing. It means I won't buy anything that has a lower perceived value than I'm willing to pay.

I've just had enough with all these various DLC maneuvers, they finally reached the tipping point with me.

Can't bring to friends' more than once or rent? Can't play on another console? Can't play properly or easily just a few years down the road if they shut down the servers? Potentially less competition since some people may not buy an online pass? Or maybe I buy new and my friend will pass on the game because he won't? Can't even PLAY Bionic Commando Rearmed 2 without being online even though I only have one ethernet cord running through the walls?

Enough already. If your game is good, let it stand on its own two feet and market the damn thing. Price accordingly. Budget properly. If it sucks, goodbye just like every other industry!

 

[turnbuckle]

Never buy used.
This is bullshit.
Not buying it now.
I know my decision won't matter at all to the publisher but I'd rather not be irritated by my purchases.
This generation has quickly killed my enthusiasm for the hobby.

 

[-PXG-]

You guys do realize that everything starts from somewhere, right? Oblivion's horse armor and Braid were litmus tests. Online passes are yet another. Online multiplayer is first. But imagine having a "pass" to play local co-op, play the second half the campaign, or even play the game at all. Would you support something like that? I sure wouldn't it.

 

[lifa-cobex]

You guys do realize that everything starts from somewhere, right? Oblivion's horse armor and Braid were litmus tests. Online passes are yet another. Online multiplayer is first. But imagine having a "pass" to play local co-op, play the second half the campaign, or even play the game at all. Would you support something like that? I sure wouldn't it.

Or even when they announced that lovely feature with Spore.

I can't remember how many install's you got but what the fuck!

 

[sixteen-bit]

You guys do realize that everything starts from somewhere, right? Oblivion's horse armor and Braid were litmus tests. Online passes are yet another. Online multiplayer is first. But imagine having a "pass" to play local co-op, play the second half the campaign, or even play the game at all. Would you support something like that? I sure wouldn't it.

Haven't there been games that lock offline content for the resale market already?

 

[thoughtspeak]

I should be able to save more than $5, so because I do not go shopping around for the biggest discount but instead settle for a $5 discount I'm a cheapskate? I'd say you're an idiot for spending $5 more just for the sake of it. These things can go both ways.

well given current conversion rates, that $5 is about how much i pay to get to the local videogame store via the tube.

So if store 1 is selling the game for $60 but store 2 is selling the same game used for $55 but is a tube ride away, im not really saving anything.

So yes, if all im going to save is my tube fare, its not worth the trip.

personallly i just wouldnt buy it either way.

 

[charlequin]

If your only saving $5, your really just being a cheapskate.

The "ZOMG $55 used games on day two!!!" thing is so overblown anyway. The vast majority of Gamestop's used business is not selling games that just came out for $55, but rather selling games that came out months or years ago for $5-40.