Ubisoft Leaps Aboard Online Pass Bandwagon

Zemus101
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 12:48:49 PM
Reply

Look out used-game sellers, sh** just got real!

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 7/14/2011 4:13:39 PM

5 up, 3 down

slugga_status
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:15:41 PM

Doesn't effect used game retailers..They'll still sale used games at the price they desire..The passes haven't stopped them from doing it yet

4 up, 1 down

Zemus101
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:24:08 PM

Yet, but we're hearing about this more and more, obviously publishers think this is a great idea. It must be having some effect.

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:28:07 PM

Slugga,

The fact that used game retailers are not altering their practices in light of online passes is more a reflection of their complete disregard for consumers. The publishers are under no obligation to provide free service to people who haven't paid them for the service. That's what the online pass addresses. It's up to the consumer to force used game retailers to recognize this simple reality in their pricing ans sales practices. So, if GameStop continues to charge $5 less than new for used copies (without online pass) of recent games, are they not simply encouraging people to buy the game new since it's cheaper that way? Seems like it's those retailers that are at fault and need to change their ways.

8 up, 1 down

slugga_status
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:34:25 PM

@Highlander

Exactly. I've always said that it's the consumer that allows Gamestops to sale games at the prices they are. I've always said I have no problem with people who do buy them for the monetary discount no matter what it is. Everyone's life situations are different. Yet, it's those people that allow the Gamestops and other used game retailers to continue to sale new games for $5 off and old games for $30. You hit it right on the head though.

I can only speak for myself..but if I see a game that's only $5 less than the full retail price then it's common sense to buy new. However, like I said other's monetary situations can be vastly different.

3 up, 0 down

duomaxwell007
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:38:50 PM

Highlander do people really buy games used in the first few weeks or month they come out? I mean is saving awhole 5 bucks that much of a big deal? I can understand wait til when the used price is39.99 whiles its still being sold new for 59.99 in that case then yeah buy used... but 5 bucks? lol

Also retailers dont need to change their practices consumers just need to be smarter.. you dont wanna pay 59.99 for a newgame and dont wanna deal with this online pass stuff? shop at amazon.com where they sell new copies of the same game gamestop is selling for 59.99 amazon has it new for 49 or even 39.99. Problem solved

And lastly just thought Id point out.. if you were on WKC as much as you are on PSXE youd be GR15 and platinum by now :p lol

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:53:29 PM

Indeed Slugga. What I don't understand about that $5 making a difference to people is this. If $5 makes a significant difference to their finances, then why would they be spending %55 on a used game in the first place? Better to feed themself, wait a few months and buy the game at $15 when it's no longer so recent or popular.

2 up, 2 down

slugga_status
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 2:07:56 PM

Highlander, that is certainly what most true gamers would do..Only way I even buy a 360 game to be honest. Yet on many occasions I see the teenagers who are willing pinch pennies just to get a game. Sometimes you'll even catch a family of gamers that will do whatever just to be able to get that additional cash on another used game, accessory, etc. I agree with you all the way. I just always think about those who aren't as fortunate as we are.

1 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 2:19:33 PM

Oh, I understand, I've been fortunate and less fortunate in my life. It's not always easy to make the right choices when your choices are so limited either.

3 up, 2 down

Fane1024
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 5:25:07 AM

FWIW, at EB Games (now owned by GameStop) in Canada at least, you'd actually pay $49.50 on a used game priced at $55, providing you paid a few bucks a year for a membership. I still don't see why you wouldn't wait for a sale if you didn't want to pay full price, but it is more savings than $5.

I always buy new unless there's an extreme savings on the used game (e.g., I got Heavenly Sword used for $25 because it was still $50 new long after it should have been a Greatest Hit).

Last edited by Fane1024 on 7/15/2011 5:30:14 AM

0 up, 0 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 12:57:27 PM
Reply

Such is the future of gaming, I still wonder how rentals will work or if they will work.

1 up, 1 down

Fane1024
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 5:34:09 AM

Last I heard, EA allows 7 days of free online play before you need the Pass, so renters can play some. I would expect others will do something similar.

0 up, 0 down

Ultimadream
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:00:03 PM
Reply

Yeah well maybe this time when they set up such a stupid system, they will lable it clearly. I have still yet to get a refund for American Magee's Alice, which had no mention on the item description about needing the sequel to play it, of course they have changed it now though...

Last edited by Ultimadream on 7/14/2011 1:00:45 PM

1 up, 0 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:26:39 PM

Alice 2 is worth it, love that game.

0 up, 0 down

Ultimadream
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:37:42 PM

Indeed, the dilema now though is if I buy it, I would have got it free anyway, so I'd still be ripped off.

0 up, 0 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 4:34:56 PM

Sell your American McGee code on ebay to someone who has bought Alice 2 used?

BTW I agree it's totally stupid that you need Alice 2 to play the first one, I'd like to be able to play mine without having to put the disk in every time.

Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 7/14/2011 4:35:56 PM

0 up, 0 down

Excelsior1
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:04:47 PM
Reply

i don't like the idea of online passes. ea is one of the worst offenders out there. me2 had an online pass to access the comic and add on missions, that was uncalled for...it's not even an online game.

6 up, 0 down

FM23
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 2:40:06 PM

But you had to download all of it new anyway. Don't get these extras used right? Bam, people fork over the money if they want these items

0 up, 0 down

Excelsior1
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 3:07:33 PM

the only thing that is downloaded is the comic. the lair of the shadowbroker, and other missions are already on the disc and locked out by the code. what's worse is the back of the box says it includes all the add on content and comic, but it does not say anything about a code to gain access to it.

it does mention a one time code is used for accessing the cerebus network for extra weapons, characters, and vehicle missions. it does not say the comic has be downloaded and the add on missions advertised on the back of are locked out by this code also.

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:07:15 PM
Reply

All major publishers are doing this. I can't remember who were first, it might have been EA, but as soon as it started to happen with others, you knew the snowball was gathering momentum down the hill. Once Sony jumped aboard, it was clear everyone would.

Now, here's an issue that I think needs to be addressed with all of this. Online play is free - when you buy the game new. That's because you are paying the publisher for the game, and thus buying your right to use their service and servers. The underlying framework for online play is still there, and with PSN it too is free. I am very hesitant to accept online passes for anything except games that feature a considerable online play aspect. Merely maintaining leaderboards and in-game records for friend comparison is not online play. Such games should never have an online pass, that's ludicrous.

But here's the thing, in a sense online passes make us pay for online play. Now, some will try to make something of that, but the point here is that looking at it from the point of view of new game sales, nothing has changed. The costs associated with online play and the provision of servers and services by the publisher have always been understood to be wrapped up in the price of the game. So nothing changes there. Online gaming is still free to those buying the game new and gaming on PSN. However for buyers of used games it now fells like their online gaming is not free, because they now have to buy an online pass. I understand that point. What those gamers have to understand and recognize is that the whole idea behind providing what is effectively free online play is based on *new* game purchases, and not used game purchases. So while I understand the feeling, I also understand that it's unfortunately based in a flawed understanding of what is provided.

What will be interesting is to see how gamers on another console that have to pay to play online at all, react to what will clearly be perceived as a double dip.

Remember, when someone buys a game used whether they buy from their local retail gouger or from that guy on Ebay or Craig's list (or wherever) they are not paying anything to the publisher of the game. Because of that they have no right to access the services or servers provided by the publisher, at the publisher's cost. The online pass that can be purchased separately will take care of that. But no matter how much anyone argues about this, when a game is bought new, that does not carve out a permanent 'slot' (as many used game buyers have argued) on the publisher's system for that copy of the game no matter who owns it. The licensing for online services is always named user based. That means that the person that purchases the game is licensed to use the online elements, and that even if they sell the game on, they are still, in effect, the named, licensed user. The used buyer has top purchase their license separately to access the servers and services covered. The whole slot concept is flawed from the outset though because this is a service not a physical article.

Watch out for that rolling snowball folks, it's gathering speed and it isn't gonna stop.

Last edited by Highlander on 7/14/2011 1:09:26 PM

8 up, 12 down

slugga_status
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:28:20 PM

@Highlander

We've had this discussion but I'd rather focus on something that you said which is the "Double Dip". I find it ridiculous that I paid $50+ for Live access and now have to pay an additional fee if I want to play online. I buy most of my games for the PS3. However, I can find some good deals on 360 games and now to access all features of the game I have to pay again.

I really believe that if you have in regards to the 360 that the passes should be disregarded. I believe Sony can some how allow Plus users to bypass these passes as well. Maybe I'm in the minority...again..but if I have to pay I'd rather pay for a service that allows me access to all features. Opposed to buying a game and then when I want to go online I have to "prove" that I purchased the game for full retail value..

btw..didn't thumbs down you agree with some points you made.

Last edited by slugga_status on 7/14/2011 1:29:29 PM

7 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:41:23 PM

Thanks Slugga, I don't worry about the thumbs down in most instances, it's not worth the thought. With regard to the 360, and Xbox Live, for a used game buyer it will feel like a double dip. In reality of course it's not because it's the publisher charging the used buyer, and not Microsoft. but to the end user that's academic, it's a double dip. As I pointed out to someone further down, this is already happening on the 360, Medal of Honor from EA used an online pass on the 360.

I don't think we'll see PlauyStation Plus take the place of this because this isn't about sending revenue to Sony. It's really got nothing to do with PSN, PlayStation Plus or Sony as a console maker at all. It's about game publishers recovering revenue lost to used game sales.

4 up, 3 down

slugga_status
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 2:02:10 PM

True that it's not about sending revenue to M$ or Sony. However, I just don't see how this would be a revenue coup for publishers. It would still be a loss although not as sufficient compared to seeing no proceeds. Although it may not be plausible for Sony being that they're not charging you for usage of the PSN. I think M$ could certainly do it or at the minimum lower the price for Live usage.

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 2:34:54 PM

But Slugga, it's not something that will happen on 360, it's already happening. Why would MS reduce their XBL cost to help gamers pay for their purchase of used games? That's what reducing XBL subscription costs in response to this would effectively be doing.

I think I may reach a record number of thumbs down in this thread.

Last edited by Highlander on 7/14/2011 2:37:36 PM

3 up, 2 down

slugga_status
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 2:58:55 PM

I careless about the thumbs down when it's a good debate. They thumb down they should at least give input...

Yes it is already happening. I say MS should reduce the cost because to me it's a little redundant. I pay for online access and then have to pay again for online access. That is surely a double dip for online access.

Yet let me ask you this..I know I'm not the only one who's seen the code generators out there. My question is what will be their next course of action once more people begin to use the generators? Then what will they do?

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 3:22:40 PM

Yep it's already happening (online pass on 360) alright. I did a quick search and found that this online pass nonsense has been happeneing with Xbox games since Spring 2010 (I'm pretty sure that all the third party games using online passes on 360 have them on PS3 as well). All EA sports title, the newer NFS games and others use it. Games from other publishers such as Homefront, Bulletstorm and Dirt3 all use it too. So it's been going on for more than a year now.

Regarding code generators, I think that if they become a problem (which they probably will) publishers will switch to serialized codes bundled into the game case when new, and a online transaction model for pass codes for new games so that the user doesn't enter a code, they either pay with money or a pre-paid card. I think that it's inevitable that this will happen too.

I take no pleasure in saying that, because every step that the industry takes in this direction is needless and wasteful. But since Gamestop reported more than $2 billion in used game revenue two years ago and the current gaming market in the US is something like $24 billion (including everything), you can see that Gamestop alone represents a significant amount of lost revenue. That's why it doesn't matter what we say, this if gonna continue.

3 up, 3 down

NoSmokingBandit
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 8:15:32 PM

Heres a thought, Highlander.

Lets say a certain game sells 1 million copies. Lets also say $15 of that goes to provide online service, just for the sake of conversation.

Now, if those 1 million copies never leave their original owners, there will be 1 million copies with online access, and 15 million dollars in support revenue.

Now lets say half of those people decide to sell their game. The new owner has to pay $15 to play online, and all 0.5M of them do.
Now there are still exactly 1 million copies with online access, yet now there is $22.5M in online support revenue. So the publisher/dev is now taking money for 1.5M copies of the game, yet only 1M are able to access the features that were paid for.

That doesnt seem quite right, does it? That would be like me paying Random House every time i buy a used book, despite the fact that the original owner no longer retains the ability to enjoy that book.

Personally, i don care about the dev/pub's bottom line. Their profit is none of my concern. I regularly borrow books from the library, but i dont hear people complaining that authors see no money from that. I regularly buy old records when i find them, but i dont hear people whine about how Pink Floyd didnt see a penny when i bought a Dark Side of the Moon vinyl. Gamers want games to be considered art but they don't want to follow the same market paradigm as every other art form. Amusing, to say the least.

Last edited by NoSmokingBandit on 7/14/2011 8:17:14 PM

2 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 8:48:30 PM

Quark,

That's not quite true. If the person that bough the game originally and traded it eventually buys the game again used, they won't need an online pass because they already have one activated on their account. So the number of online passes sold matches the number of gamers who used the service, regardless of the number of copies of the game sold. That seems eminently fair.

0 up, 0 down

NoSmokingBandit
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 9:39:51 PM

But the server revenue is going to increase without any extra strain on the servers. The original owner isnt going to need their pass, but they arent going to be able to use it without the disc either, so they have still paid their $15 for a non-transferable pass. That means the publisher/dev will get more than $15 per active online player, and that strain has to fall to the customer? Idk, maybe i was trained differently than most people, but where i work it is always customers first. We'd never dream of asking someone to pay for something that someone else has already paid for and can't use.

2 up, 0 down

Highlander
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 12:24:57 AM

Customers first. Yes indeed. But, how is a buyer of a used game a customer of the publisher? They have established no such customer relationship with the publisher. So yes, by all means customers first. I may be old fashioned, but paying customers are the only customers that matter.

1 up, 1 down

amonte
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:16:03 PM
Reply

Congratulations Ubisoft, I will not be buying any games froms you.

6 up, 6 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:24:36 PM

If you are buying your games for Ubisoft, this won't make a single iota of a difference to you. the purchaser of new games sees nothing different except having a code on a car that they enter to access the online servers. No extra cost, nothing.

On the other hand if you buy your games used, your threat is an empty one because Ubisoft never sees any of your money anyway. Your personal vow not to buy any of their games (used) has no effect on them.

5 up, 5 down

Excelsior1
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:36:19 PM

@highlander

he never said used. i think he means he won't consider buying ubisoft games out of principle becuase of their use of an online pass system. that sounds like a lost potential sale and it does have an impact. i've read many similar comments from others, some won't buy a game with an online pass out of principle.

i have a strong feeling this online pass system won't end with just the online portion of the game. a perfect example of this is me2's way of segmenting a single player game with a code or pass.

5 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:36:39 PM

Edit: fixing some typos....

If you are buying your games from Ubisoft, this won't make a single iota of a difference to you. The purchaser of new games sees nothing different except having a code on a card that they enter to access the online servers. No extra cost, nothing.

1 up, 4 down

amonte
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 2:16:36 PM

For the record, I always buy my games new.

@Excelsior- That's exactly right, out of principle and because I have been gaming for almost twenty years and if we, the gamers, don't act now, the gaming world is going to be a piece of shit and I won't just sit and let it happen.

@TheHighlander- Even if someone buys a multiplayer game used it benefits the devs/pubs because that means one more player playing the game online, which equals better experience playing the game, better community which equals happier owners of the game, which equals they're going to buy the sequel and more fans to that game's franchise and positive word of mouth which means more purchases of the game and sequel.

There's also paid DLC that should be paid DLC, which people that bought the game new or used can still buy.

Also, devs/pubs sell COPIES of games, not how many people play a game, which is what the online pass is, charging each person for playing the game.

For example, say they give GameStop 30 copies of a game, and each copy gets sold, the devs/pubs made their profit from each COPY of the game. Now if someone wants to trade the game for another or sell it or give it away, the new owner will have to PAY TO PLAY IT even though the new owner has a copy of the game that has already been paid for and the original owner no longer has the game.

11 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 2:21:25 PM

They sell copies of the game. So do they have to put servers in place to handle the online? If so those must be paid for. Why shouldn't all users of those services pay the publisher that provides them? the original buyer of a game doesn't reserve a permanent spot for the owner of the game, they reserve a permanent spot personal to them, that is not transferable.

5 up, 8 down

Underdog15
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 2:43:46 PM

@amote
Soon all devs and pubs will be doing this. You'll have no more games to play, ever!

2 up, 6 down

matt99
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 3:12:37 PM

Well said amonte, the devs have already received payment for the copy, they shouldn't get more.

6 up, 0 down

PAKINIPS
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 8:20:06 PM

@highlander
it was their choice to add an online to the game to presumably get more sales, therefore they are choosing to pay for upkeep.

3 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 8:49:05 PM

No, that argument is rather like trying to tell a judge that so and so was asking for it in an assault case.

1 up, 1 down

PAKINIPS
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 3:34:51 AM

So and so being the publisher
Gamers being the criminal
So and so makes his item look better by adding stickers (online)
Criminal buys item cheap? And steals the stickers?

Nah i don't think I get it

0 up, 0 down

Excelsior1
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:19:07 PM
Reply

i've said it before. i prefer activision's way of monetizing the online portion of their game with an optional service vs a mandatory online pass system. i just think an online pass system is an unfriendly way to create consumers.

3 up, 0 down

Culoslap
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:27:40 PM
Reply

It will be interesting if Microsoft implements this with Live. I buy all my games new and hardly ever play online anymore. So the whole online pass doesn't affect me in the slightest.

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:32:59 PM

I don't think it's really up to Microsoft. If EA wants to charge for an online pass with 360 games, they can, right? I mean, they already *do* this. Medal of Honor for example has an online pass on the 360.

Wouldn't an online pass on a 360 game constitute double dipping since a used game buyer has to pay Microsoft for their XBL Gold subscription, the used game retailer gouges their cut, and then the publisher sells the online pass to allow online access.

1 up, 2 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 3:14:24 PM

Actually, thi online pass nonsense has been happeneing with Xbox games since Spring 2010. All EA sports title, the newer NFS games and others use it. Games from other publishers such as Homefront, Bulletstorm and Dirt3 all use it too. So whatever else we want to say, the online pass is not unique to Sony, and has not resulted in Microsoft dropping subscription fees for XBL.

2 up, 2 down

Lawless SXE
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:28:56 PM
Reply

I was hoping that something like this was going to come along. Not because I condone it, but because I was thinking of the PSN Pass. Not about how I feel on it or anything, but I thought that perhaps PSN subscribers should get a reprieve from it. They're already paying for extra services right? Well, making them exempt from the PSN Pass would certainly help uptake even if people only buyn 1-2 Sony games each year.

Either way, this is going to become an inevitability. It's all about the cash, and I know why they're doing it. I know that, in a way, it is right, but whatever.

1 up, 1 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:34:59 PM

Lawless, if you buy your games new, this has no impact since it's bundled with the game. The new price of games has always included the publisher's costs for online, nothing changed except the publisher want to find a way to ensure that used purchaser still pay the publisher for the online portion of play. For a PS3 owner on PSN buying new copies of games, there is zero impact.

1 up, 4 down

Lawless SXE
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 2:02:59 PM

I'm aware of that, but there are a lot of people out there that prefer to buy used due to the cheaper prices that come along with it. I'm just saying that PSPlus should make subscribers exempt from having to pay if they choose to buy used (only when it comes to the PSN Pass though), as they are already paying for a service that gives them an advantage over non-subscribers.

Publishers need to recoup their losses somehow, as there are thousands, and possibly millions of people playing their games, essentially at a pure loss for the companies for having to upkeep the servers. This I know, but I still can't reconcile myself with any need for such a thing as an online pass. That being said, as of this point in time, it has no effect on me whatsoever, so this will be my last post in regards to online passes unless something else comes along.
Peace.

Last edited by Lawless SXE on 7/14/2011 2:03:22 PM

1 up, 1 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 2:23:31 PM

Why should PS Plus make used game buyer's exempt? None of that revenue goes to the game publishers, it's all Sony. PS Plus isn't about enabling online play in any case. But that honestly has nothing to do with the concept or practice of online passes at all. Remember who is creating the online passes and why.

3 up, 3 down

amonte
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 2:29:40 PM

@TheHighlander- The original purchaser of the game already covered the costs for online. Charging the used purchaser to play online is just the devs/pubs charging each person that plays it. This is just another dirty, greedy way to nickel and dime gamers and make more money unfairly.

@Lawless- Publishers don't lose money whatsoever from used game sales, that's what people need to understand. Devs/pubs ship copies of games and sell those copies, when those copies are bought they make their profit from each copy. When someone sells, trades or gives away their copy of the game to someone else, it's still the same copy that has been paid for and the original owner no longer has the game it's not like he also has it too, the new owner is just replacing the original owner. It's not like the devs/pubs have to give the money they made from each copy back. The used games to see in stores have already been paid for.

And the original purchaser of the game has already paid for the costs of servers, so again, devs/pubs don't lose any money whatsoever.

THE ONLINE PASS IS JUST ANOTHER DIRTY, GREEDY WAY TO NICKEL AND DIME US!, THE GAMERS, THEIR MONEY MAKERS.

9 up, 2 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 2:32:25 PM

Simple question Amonte, why shouldn't a publisher get paid by every person that plays their game?

The original purchaser covers their own use of the game they did not pay forward for every person that ever plays with that copy.

4 up, 7 down

Underdog15
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 2:44:29 PM

@amote
Highlander has you owned, son.

3 up, 9 down

matt99
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 3:20:21 PM

No offense, but Highlander most certainly does not have amonte owned, the devs are basically double dipping here. They've found a way to make money off of something they've already made money off of, it's just greedy-clever I must admit-but still greedy.

9 up, 4 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 3:28:16 PM

No they're not Matt. The publishers are not double dipping at all. Game retailers are, but the publishers aren't. Buying a used game on disc entitles you only to what is on that disc, nothing else. So if you want anything else, better pony up.

4 up, 7 down

matt99
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 3:44:52 PM

So you're saying that multiplayer is extra? and not part of the game? That's ridiculous, when you buy a game new or used you're buying the whole experience of that game. At least that's how I see it.

Maybe what really needs to be discussed is what exactly we are buying when we buy a game.

8 up, 3 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 4:32:03 PM

No, you're saying that. I'm saying that when you buy a used game, you get what's on the disc, nothing else.

4 up, 4 down

amonte
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 5:16:04 PM

@TheHighlander- Because devs/pubs sell the COPIES of their game and unless I dreamt it all, since my almost twenty years of gaming and way before that as well, it has always been that way. Now devs/pubs want to sell the game to us and also charge each person that plays it. That's 100% dirty, greedy and double dipping.

You're mistaken, again devs/pubs sell copies of their game, not each person that plays it, so your last statement and all your others statement have no logic.

6 up, 3 down

amonte
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 5:23:20 PM

I can't be owned because what I have said is fact, not my opinion.

4 up, 2 down

tes37
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 6:12:40 PM

Gamestop should provide all the whiners with online access. They're the only ones getting paid when a game is sold as used. If I were Sony I'd make a special page that pops up and reads ' Redirecting To Gamestop Server'.

2 up, 2 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 8:51:57 PM

Amonte read what I wrote again. You buy a used game you get what is on the disc, *nothing* else. All the extra stuff online including anything on their servers is at the publisher's discretion to provide. So yes, they sold a copy of the game, but once that copy is sold, that's it.

1 up, 3 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 9:48:51 PM

Tes, that is an awesome idea. It should be so.

2 up, 0 down

Lawless SXE
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 2:34:54 AM

Again Highlander, not exempt from all online passes, only the PSN Pass. That is revenue for Sony, so why should Plus owners also have to pay for the pass. When it comes to third party publishers, then no, they should not be unless XBL Gold members are also. That's all I'm saying in regards to that.

amonte,
Highlander is dead-on. You may think that the publisher is not losing money from a used purchase, but they are. It's as simple as this:
You create a product that you are selling for say, five dollars. You sell that to someone, and get five dollars, but they then sell it on to someone else for four dollars. They lose one dollar, but you lose a sale that would otherwise have netted you an extra five dollars. Same principle applies. Someone is getting something without the original creator being compensated for it. Therefore, the original creator is losing out, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not.

matt,
Publishers are indeed double dipping. They've made money off of one sale, but if someone sells it on, they lose out, so the double dipping is reasonable.

amonte2,
That's crap. You're basically saying that people shold be entitled to these games for free. Yeah, they pay for them, but if the publisher receives no money from the customer, then they ARE losing out. The capitalist economy dictates that all goods and services are paid for, so the publishers are the ones that are more than entitled to charge people extra for features, so long as they don't see anything from that original purchase.

Tes,
I like it.

Seriously now, that's it from me.
Peace.

1 up, 4 down

Fane1024
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 6:05:28 AM

Lawless,

You're assuming that:

a) the person who bought the game used would pay full price if they couldn't get it used;
b) the person who bought the game new would have bought it if they couldn't re-sell it;
c) they both wouldn't choose to rent the game rather than pay $60;
d) they both wouldn't wait for a price drop;
e) they both wouldn't choose not to play it at all.

It's entirely possible that neither would have ever bought the game (though in your $5>$4 example, they probably would, but that's not necessarily a realistic scenario).

One new game sale at release is better for the publisher and developer than two half-price game sales after a price drop is forced by poor initial sales (due to production and shipping costs).

Two players playing a game is better for the publisher and developer than one player playing a game (due to potential sales of future iterations), even if revenue and profit on the initial game is the same.

p.s. I don't love the idea of the online pass and I don't agree with Highlander's contention that online play is a non-transferable right, but I also don't object to game makers trying to coax gamers into buying new copies in this fashion. I find it far less burdensome than others are saying it is.

Last edited by Fane1024 on 7/15/2011 6:30:49 AM

4 up, 0 down

Temjin001
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:34:16 PM
Reply

Phase 1 is now complete my lord.

Muwahahaha good now begin phase 2. Slash MSRP at retail to $30 and implement a $30 online game activation fee.

Soon muwahhahaha soon we shall have peace.

4 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:35:44 PM

Oh you cynic! You stole my line, I was holding onto that one until the online passes were universal.

;)

1 up, 2 down

maxpontiac
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:39:06 PM

I know a Sith Lord when I see one.

1 up, 0 down

maxpontiac
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:38:11 PM
Reply

I personally offer my thanks to all of you who Beta Tested and accepted the pay to play model of Xbox Live.

With Sony, EA, and now Ubisoft on the Pass bandwagon, it's pretty much an official "norm" similar to how you have to pay $59.99 for a new title.

2 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:50:56 PM

The thing is Max, on XBL, the payment to MS for XBL doesn't cover or replace the online pass. The online pass is something that the publishers are using to recover revenue lost to used game sales, so the online passes exist on the 360 - in addition to the Gold membership requirement.

For a new game purchaser, the situation is the same as it's always been, pay MS $50 a year to play, pay Sony $0 a year to play, because the cost of the online service provision by the publisher is wrapped up into the retail price of the new game.

For a used game purchaser it's more complicated. Pay MS $50 a year to play online, and pay the game publisher $5-$10 for access to their services, or pay Sony $0 a year to play online and pay the publisher $5-$10 for access to their services.

Online is still as 'free' with PSN as it ever was.

People keep seeing this as something aimed at consumers. It's not. It's aimed at used game retail stores. When Gamestop (for example) charges you $55 for that used copy of a recent game, all $55 goes to gamestop, plus you don't buy the new copy and the publisher sees nothing.

With the online pass model, the new copy still costs the same $60 it always did, but now there's a problem for the used game. If GameStop still charges $55 for the game and you have to buy an online pass as well at $5, you might as well buy the game new. So GameStop has to reduce their price to the point where the price of the used game either includes a free online pass, or the price is low enough that the extra cost of the online pass still makes buying the used game attractive to the consumer.

In the end, used gamers will probably still pay the same amount for their used games, but the money spent on the online pass will go to the publisher offsetting the lost revenue caused by used game sales.

This isn't aimed at the consumer it's aimed at the used game retail sector. Consumers need to make some noise to ensure that used game gougers drop their prices or bundle free online passes.

2 up, 7 down

Excelsior1
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:57:13 PM

it's the consumer that's going to pay the price whether it's aimed it them or not. have you ever bought a new game and tried to enter a damn code that won't work for 4 days? i would consider that an impact on consumers.

Last edited by Excelsior1 on 7/14/2011 1:58:44 PM

4 up, 1 down

jimmyhandsome
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 1:57:23 PM

I know you know my stance on this, Highlander. But I somewhat disagree that this move isn't aimed at consumers. While yes, this move clearly affects places like Gamestop from selling a used game for only $5 less, that doesn't mean that they will lower the price by $10 because of this pass. They haven't with EA's games (that have had this online pass since last fall) and I don't forsee them doing it in the future. Yes, this is Gamestop's fault and not the Publishers, but it just creates confusion and (IMO) unnecessary expenses for the consumer.

So while the publishers may not being trying to affect the consumer, they most certainly are.

Last edited by jimmyhandsome on 7/14/2011 1:57:57 PM

4 up, 0 down

Excelsior1
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 2:05:13 PM

ofcourse it affects the consumers and the publishers know it too. gamespot isn't going to give out a free online pass with their games. publishers don't have the guts to take on used game sales directly with the retailers so it's the consumer that's cuaght in the middle and has to pay the price.

4 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 2:30:09 PM

Needless to say I disagree with you both, but both of you are essentially saying that you understand that online passes are aimed at GameStop and the like, but that because those retailers won't reduce their prices it harms the consumer.

You know though that the fault there lies with the retailer and the consumer that put's up with it. Excelsor, the publishers haven't got any leverage on used game retailers to force them to give up a share of the revenue from used games. It's not about having the guts, they already tried the negotiation route, and the retailers basically told them 'no'. But either way, don't blame the publisher or the online pas for the harm that used game retailers may, or may not, do to consumers, blame the used game retailers. To do otherwise is to excuse them, and put the blame on the wrong party.

2 up, 1 down

Excelsior1
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 2:46:17 PM

the online pass is aimed at the consumer becuase like you say the publishers have no leverage and they know it's going to be passed along to the consumer. sorry, i do blame the publishers. used game sales are legal, and that's the end of the argument. i guess so are online passes, but that does not mean we have to like it or buy games that choose to implement it.

online pass is just an attempt to double dip. they got paid when the first game was sold imo. it's no extra drain on servers if a game is passed along to someone else. it's not like all the sudden there are more copies floating around. it's still that one copy that has already been paid for.

6 up, 1 down

slugga_status
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 2:46:52 PM

All I can honestly say is that there isn't one significant body (consumers, used retailers, publishers, etc.) to place blame or fault. In truth it's a combination of it all that influenced the arrival of these passes.

All I can say is that they need to think of something different.

Last edited by slugga_status on 7/14/2011 2:50:14 PM

4 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 3:11:50 PM

Excelsior,

I didn't say that used game sales were illegal. In fact I'm glad you brought that up. When you buy a used game you buy a disc and a case, and if you're lucky a 8 page pamphlet explaining how the game is controlled. You 'purchase' the copy of the game on the disc. There is no obligation what so ever on the publisher of the game to provide you with updates, patches, DLC or online access. You bought the used copy of the game on the disc, which is perfectly legal. But anything that is *not* contained on that disc, whether it be a patch, DLC or even the server code that runs when you access the system online, or the data sent to your console when you logon. None of that is on the disc, so you are entitled to use none of it. You paid for the copy on the disc, *nothing* else.

So clearly, by your own logic, legally you bought only the copy on the disc, and have to pay for the online pass to access everything else.

5 up, 3 down

Excelsior1
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 3:30:15 PM

i've read my share of pamphlets. some even go as far to say do lend out the game or resale it. what makes games so special the publisher is entitled to cut for every person who plays their game. does that happen in music, or books, and movies? if i thought it would end at just the online part i wouldn't feel so strongly about it. i'm almost positive it won't. just a matter of time. look a pc gaming for an example where you essentially have to buy a game again if it's used.

we can discuss this to infinity and you make good arguments that might be legally and technicly correct. that does not mean i have to like it. i just don't like seeing games segmented with codes in any way.

5 up, 2 down

Highlander
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 10:57:58 AM

The pamphlet I was referring to is the instructions for how to control the game, not the copyright terms. Sorry, that wasn't very well phrased in my comment.

The thing is that the online pass is a way of allowing access to things that are not on the disc. Those things are not covered by the sale of the game on the disc, so even if you take a very broad and liberal view on the terms of copyright, that still won't help with the online content.

That said, I do *not* agree with publishers putting stuff on the disc and selling codes to access that content. If it's on the disc and I paid for the disc, then I should not have to buy a code to access what is on the disc whether I bought the game new or used. This practice of putting content on the disc that is locked and can only be unlocked through a purchased code is completely unacceptable. But that is not what we aer talking about here, it might be part of the context because some games do it, but it's not the issue.

It comes down to what are you getting when you buy a used game. Can the sale of a used game confer an obligation on the publisher to the used buyer? No, of course it cannot, that is not what copyright or software licensing or any other contract law says. So when you buy the used game you get the used game only, in other words you get the box, the book and the disc and anything on the disc. Anything not on the game disc is not covered by the purchase the game. It's only when you buy the game new and apply the online passcode that the additional online elements are added, or alternately you buy the game used abd purchase an online pass and the additional elements are added. That kind of thing could include server code, any patches to the game and true add-on content. When it comes to the service provided by the game publisher for online play, even in a peer to peer game they maintain some servers to support matchmaking and the provision of things like leader boards. That service is a separate thing from the copy of the game on the disc, and is provided to new purchasers of the game as part of the new purchase. When that game disc is traded and sold to a second, third or more user, the only thing being sold is the packaging and the game disc and the copy of the game embodied on the disc itself.

Just like when you sell a book, you are selling that copy of that edition. It doesn't matter if there is a newer revision with 100 extra pages and 1,000 corrections and revisions to the original text. When you buy that used book, you are buying only that original version, and have no right to have the new revision, unless you buy it for yourself.

Publishers are not dumb, and they will do something to ensure that they are covered if anyone tries to be smart by claiming that the online code is on the disc. To ensure that no one can do an end run around the legality of this, I think that game publishers will ensure that the specific program code necessary for online play, is simply not on the disc and will be downloaded when you enter your passcode. All the graphical, audio, AI and other assets will be on the disc, but the core online multiplayer program code will not and will have to be downloaded and patched into the game.

That really is the long and the short of this. Game publishers are basically offering the online pass as a vastly reduced cost way of getting that latest revision of the game on the disc plus all the additions that have been made. Otherwise, just like the book sale example, you only get what is on the used game disc. I don't see how it could, or should be any other way.

0 up, 1 down

mike rlz
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 2:32:38 PM
Reply

the way i see it when you buy a copy of a game that copy is being used to access the online. if it is sold second hand, it's still that same copy being used to access the online. i dont see how it somehow costs more to use their servers and you have to pay a fee because the copy being used is second hand.

i say with every copy sold, whoever has that game has the right to use the online portion because they already got the money from the purchase of that copy of the game. it's not like whoever bought the game new is still using the game that he doesnt own now and now they somehow have two consumers on their hands using their online servers with the same copy of the game. hell, maybe that made no sense but that's just my opinion.

6 up, 1 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 2:36:39 PM

The way you see it is wrong.

When you buy a used Cellphone, do you expect perpetual free service because the original owner paid for it?

The original buyer paid for his/her online usage, not yours, mine or anyone else's, just their own.

3 up, 6 down

Excelsior1
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 2:53:21 PM

@highlander

i don't think that's a fair comparison, we all know cell phone service has to be continualy paid for, onlne multiplayer in most games does not unless it's a subscription based game.

4 up, 1 down

mike rlz
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 3:13:56 PM

i see what you're saying highlander. that example is a subscription based service. when you buy a game new, do you then have to pay annually to use the servers they have to keep up? i dont see that

if the price to use their servers was included with a new game purchase, thus justifying the pass when you buy second hand, shouldnt that mean a new online enabled game would cost a little more than a new single player game?

Last edited by mike rlz on 7/14/2011 3:14:21 PM

4 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 2:46:21 PM
Reply

I still find it hilarious that people can't comprehend what Highlander is saying. I'm on vacation in Iowa right now for a family wedding and can't comment extensively.

Long and short... Highlander is exactly right. I find it hilarious that people -STILL- think licenses should be transferrable. It's hilarious, actually.

4 up, 7 down

matt99
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 3:22:05 PM

Why shouldn't they be? Amonte has made the point quite clearly.

8 up, 2 down

jimmyhandsome
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 3:35:48 PM

Well I can't speak for everyone, but I know that I am comprehending 100% what he is saying. I just disagree with him. What's so hilarious about that?

Last edited by jimmyhandsome on 7/14/2011 3:41:27 PM

8 up, 0 down

Excelsior1
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 3:40:24 PM

@matt and jimmy

i completely agree, and find nothing funny about it. i guess we are too dumb to get it, that's what is so funny.

3 up, 0 down

jimmyhandsome
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 3:51:16 PM

@ Excelsior

Exactly. This isn't really a case of right and wrong, and people who feel one way won't be swayed differently. You either are ok with publishers using this tatic because you feel __________ or you're against this tatic because you feel _____________.

5 up, 0 down

BikerSaint
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 3:16:54 PM
Reply

I don't like this whole online pass crap, but since this is going to become the normal standard in the future, $10 per game is way to much and will keep most to playing only SP mode
If they should charge us $5 each it would be a lot more feasible to digest.

Sooooo, in the same token of online gaming, since a lot of us buy the game brand new but never play the MP modes, there should also be some kind of option for us non-MP mode players to get at least a $5-$15 buck rebate given back to us too.

3 up, 0 down

Excelsior1
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 3:36:13 PM

well put. that's not a bad idea about non mp players, but i promise you the greedy publishers would never do it.

3 up, 1 down

slugga_status
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 8:50:22 AM

Have to agree with that..if they're telling people that online access is X amount then the game should be discounted for those who don't play MP.

0 up, 0 down

main_event05
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 5:35:53 PM
Reply

I have no idea why people still trade in games anyway. I pay $60 bucks for a game beat it and then sell it for $10 tops? F*ck that, what kind of sick mind f*ck is that Sh*t?

4 up, 0 down

JackDillinger89
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 5:44:38 PM
Reply

This online pass fiasco usually hurts game rentals rather used game buyers. If one really wants to save money just wait a few months or a year and buy it when prices drop. Personally i find single player games with 12 hours or less worth renting only. RPGS and multiplayers ill pay $60 for. I do see inevitability that single player only games will utilize codes too in the future( Now that is wrong lol)

0 up, 0 down

tes37
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 6:36:45 PM
Reply

I don't blame Ubisoft one bit. I don't know anyone that wants to go to work each day and watch someone else make money off of their labor.

I don't want to earn 30 to 40 percent less because someone wants a discount. I want everything I worked for. Does anyone offer game developers discounts on items they shop for to return the favor?

1 up, 4 down

RadioHeader
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 6:46:46 PM

"Does anyone offer game developers discounts on items they shop for to return the favor?"

Yes, unless developers are the only member of the species whose possessions were all bought new.

1 up, 0 down

tes37
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 7:03:14 PM

No the favor is not returned. Those employees stand to see potential bonuses disappear as well as their jobs if sales goals are not reached.

Used game buyers are probably the first ones on the internet crying about their favorite developer going bankrupt.

Last edited by tes37 on 7/14/2011 7:07:15 PM

1 up, 1 down

RadioHeader
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 7:21:47 PM

Have you ever bought anything 2nd hand?

What's the difference between games and everything else?

Everything's made by someone, and that someone only gets paid once. Not every time his product changes hands.

I like you by the way, it's a shame our 1st chat is an argument :)

2 up, 0 down

tes37
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 7:52:54 PM

Not so much an argument as a disagreement. I'm comparing my work week with a game developers. If they don't get the full proceeds generated by their labor, it's the same as if you cut my wages and pay me less. All I'm saying is I wouldn't continue to work under those conditions.

0 up, 1 down

RadioHeader
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 8:04:08 PM

Well I'll duck out before this disagreement becomes an argument. It's 2am and I'm slightly drunk.

Like someone already said, we're divided on this and it doesn't appear anyone's gonna change sides. But we live to fight on the internet another day! L9erz

1 up, 0 down

RadioHeader
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 6:42:55 PM
Reply

Because of Gamestop's greed, we have to pay for developers' envy. Those two are sins btw.

I may be a tight*ss but at least I'm not a sinner!

1 up, 1 down

Wissam
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 7:14:39 PM
Reply

What a disgusting way to fight the used games market. more restrictions on us gamers.

2 up, 2 down

sunspider13
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 8:10:50 PM
Reply

Wow from seeing the comments here on this subject it's really a hot button issue. In my mind the long and the short of it for me is this; the online pass is the new standard, like it or not. Dev studios and publishers are in the business of making money, plain and simple. The retailers are taking a big chunk out of their profits and what are the devs/publishers going to do? Find a way to recoup that lost revenue. I don't like it either but I buy my games new so it won't affect me any.

1 up, 1 down

NLCanada
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 8:25:28 PM
Reply

I look at it this way.

I bought a brand new Ford Focus about a year and a half ago. Lets say, I sell my car to a used dealer for x amount of dollars, the dealer then sells the car to a customer. Is the customer then obligated to pay Ford a fee to turn the key?

Last edited by NLCanada on 7/14/2011 8:29:01 PM

1 up, 1 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 8:56:48 PM

No, of course not, but then the used buyer of a game can put it in their console and play the living crap out of the SP portion of the game, can't they? That's what's on the disc after all. The MP portion of the game depends on resources not on the disc. Just as the car purchased used requires resources to run. Do you expect the used car to be sold with lifetime free gas? or lifetime free maintenance? Not, of course not. It's the same thing here. You buy a used car, you get the car, nothing else, except maybe the basic drive train warranty. You buy a used game, you get what is on the disc, nothing else. There's nothing at all preventing the game from working, it's single player gameplay will work just fine. So feel free to turn the key in that used car you bought, just remember to fill up with gas before you join the interstate.

3 up, 5 down

Fane1024
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 6:47:15 AM

It would only be the same thing if the new car came with lifetime free gas. I get your point about maintenance plans, but I don't think it's compelling.

If the first purchaser gets perpetual free online play (until the servers are retired) as part of the $60, then it's part of the package that "comes on the disc" and it travels with the disc. If the costs were covered for one player, then they're still covered for *ONE* player.

But, again, I'm actually with you on this issue because (for the most part) the program is just an incentive to buy games new, just like pre-order bonuses, etc.

Last edited by Fane1024 on 7/15/2011 7:01:13 AM

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 11:03:55 AM

Fane,

I agree with what you're saying - I think. Let me elaborate and see whether we're in agreement.

The server provision made for the online player when the new purchaser of the game enters their code does not expire because they then trade the game. So when the used buyer comes along, there is no slot available for them because a named user (the original buyer) already used that 'slot', that people are so fond of referencing. The used buyer has to purchase their own spot on the server for their account, because the original user still exists and will exist until the service is terminated.

As you say the costs for one user have been covered with the original purchase, and that user has made use of the service. That provision, the account on the server - if you will - has been consumed. So a subsequent used buyer represents an additional user, and so has to pay.

0 up, 1 down

Fane1024
Saturday, July 16, 2011 @ 1:47:16 AM

No, you don't agree with me, but that's okay. You're human; you can't be right all the time.

I agree with those who say there is still only one person using the bandwidth, regardless of how many profiles have been stored on the servers.

I don't see how the original user still "exists" in any meaningful way if they can't log onto the server and play the game. If (as you said somewhere) they reacquire the game, they are using the new disc to access the server, not their original one.

Last edited by Fane1024 on 7/16/2011 1:53:31 AM

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Saturday, July 16, 2011 @ 2:50:07 AM

If you have a PSN account, you have a PSN account regardless of which PS3 you log on with, right? If you buy game X and activate the online pass for it, then the GameX server now has an account for you. That account is specific to you, not the game disc. The game disc is not uniquely identified, but you are. When you sell that game to someone else, the server doesn't magically know that you sold it to fred down the street. As far as the game server is concerned you, the user that activated the online pass with your specific PSN are still an activated user of the game. There's no way for the server to know your disc was bought by Fred. When Fred access the online portion it requires a new online pass for Fred's user, since your user already exists.

This is the same as it is on PSN and every other system in the world.

0 up, 1 down

NLCanada
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 9:40:46 PM
Reply

Highlander

Lifetime free of gas? Lifetime free maintenance?
No brand new car comes with either, a game however comes packaged with online capabilities.

My point is Ford, Dodge, Honda etc etc etc don't see any money from their cars being sold to independent dealers a couple years after being purchased new. But yet, a person will save half the money and get to enjoy the very same car.

3 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 9:47:58 PM

Your car analogy is flawed because you're comparing the sale of a purely physical article with the sale of a game and claiming that your car analogy means that the sale of a used game by Joe Bloggs to Fred Smith somehow obligates the publisher to provide a service to Fred for free. This argument has been hashed out so many times it should be obvious to one and all now, but still people try with the flawed car analogy.

2 up, 5 down

NLCanada
Thursday, July 14, 2011 @ 10:06:51 PM
Reply

Flawed analogy? It's just my view/opinion on the matter. Which I'm sure people will agree and disagree with. That's what the comment section is for after all right? You don't agree with my view so it's flawed? Seems that alot of ppl have their own take on the matter and just because I don't agree with you doesn't make my look on the matter flawed.

2 up, 1 down

Highlander
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 12:29:56 AM

An analogy can be flawed whether you agree with it or not.

1 up, 1 down

The Doom
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 9:31:40 AM
Reply

Dammit I'm outta popcorn...

0 up, 0 down

DazeOfWar
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 10:29:42 AM
Reply

I still don't understand why people are constantly whining about this. If it bothers you so much just shop smarter. You can always find great sales on new games everywhere. I picked up Crysis 2 for $30 2 weeks after it came out. I picked up Alice for $35 a few weeks after release at K-Mart.

I do buy used games but that all depends on how old the game is. If there is an online pass I get it new. Look at ME2 which GS sells for $50 used. The online pass is $15 I think so you end up paying the same price as if it was new. I found it new off of EA's store for $32 with free shipping. Saved me $30. Even if you buy something used off of say Amazon a lot cheaper than the new copy the extra $10 for the pass isn't going to break you.

The online pass is not hurting the industry. It does hurt people with multiple users on 1 console and that is something that needs to be figured out.

Just like Highlander has said, the online features are extra. If you read the fine print the companies can do whatever they want with the online. They can shut them down 2 months after the game releases if they feel like it. Hell if you buy the last year version of say MLB the servers are already shutdown. So you are actually losing out on some of the features of the game.

Remeber shop smarter and find those deals and you'll never have a problem.

1 up, 0 down

Highlander
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 11:05:31 AM

I think that if the online pass concept was tweaked to work like a regular game activation so that all players on the same console could use the game, that issue would be resolved overnight, and it would make the whole concept much more palatable.

2 up, 2 down

DazeOfWar
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 11:13:22 AM

If they did it like that I bet a lot of people wouldn't really have a problem with it.

Hell don't computer games already use a 1 time activation code to even play the games. You can't even sell used computer games can you?

I know some of the games I have bought off steam had a key I had to enter.

0 up, 0 down

NLCanada
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 11:30:53 AM
Reply

All in all, it's not even that big of a deal. I only play a select few games online anyway and 99% of the time I buy new.

The above posts was my overall view, but in all reality this really isn't a big deal at all, to me anyway.

2 up, 1 down

Ather
Monday, July 18, 2011 @ 3:26:28 PM
Reply

So, I can a buy a used game cheaply, and pay an extra 5 for online content, and still save money. Not seeing much reason for new (except more of a gaurantee discs will play and be clean.)

0 up, 0 down

Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories cheats	PSP
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas cheats	PS2
ATV: Offroad Fury cheats	PS2
Fight Night Round 3 cheats	PS3
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory cheats	PS2
Bushido Blade cheats	PS1
Resident Evil 4 cheats	PS2
Wipeout Fusion cheats	PS2
Tony Hawk's Underground 2 Remix cheats	PSP
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories cheats	PSP

Do you plan to buy a PlayStation Vita this year?
	Yes, I'll definitely get one in 2013.
	No, but I'll get one eventually.
	No, I have no intention of buying the Vita.
	No, I've already got one.

Playstation 3

Playstation 4

PSP

Playstation Vita

Playstation 2

Playstation

Other

PSX Extreme

Site Stats

Ubisoft Leaps Aboard Online Pass Bandwagon

Comments (116 posts)

Leave a Comment

Latest Updates

Popular Cheats

Recent Reviews

Recent Previews

Popular Sections

Extras

Sponsor

Our Poll

Metro: Last Light review	PS3
Zombie Tycoon II: Brainhov's Revenge review	PS3
Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon review	PS3
Star Trek: The Video Game review	PS3
Injustice: Gods Among Us review	PS3
Dead Island: Riptide review	PS3
Defiance review	PS3
Sniper: Ghost Warrior 2 review	PS3
Army of Two: The Devil's Cartel review	PS3
Bioshock Infinite review	PS3

The Bureau: XCOM Declassified preview	PS3
Time and Eternity preview	PS3
Ride to Hell: Retribution preview	PS3
Call of Juarez: Gunslinger preview	PS3
Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon preview	PS3
Spartacus Legends preview	PS3
Payday 2 preview	PS3
DUST 514 preview	PS3
Dynasty Warriors 8 preview	PS3
Disgaea D2: A Brighter Darkness preview	PS3