'Should we be charged for features in the product because we buy used?'

CVG - Or should it work like the used cars market?

[StrongMan]

Yes it should work like the used car market. Its bad enough that on Xbox you are charged an extra fee to access the online portion of the game that you paid $60 brand new.

[gamingdroid]

Except on Xbox Live they offer you premium features, streamlined interface and major feature updates not available on other consoles. As it stands Xbox Live do offer value.

However, Online Passes as it currently stands does not offer anything other than to restrict your access. If they would offer me something I didn't already get then taken away and repackaged, then I might be more inclined to support the idea of Online Passes.

[TopDudeMan]

The dragon age origins shale DLC was a good example. You got the golem if you bought it new. And you had to pay extra to get that content if you bought it used.

But, you by no means needed the dlc to enjoy the game

[Yi-Long]

... they should make sure that customers who buy their product won't sell it!

They could accomplish this buy releasing FREE DLC and keep supporting their game and it's fans! That way, if you know in 3-4 months time there will be new cool stuff released for your game for free, you will hang on to your copy!

But I guess they care more about nickel-and-diming their fans instead.

[Cupid_Viper_3]

@ gamingdroid,

Whatever bell and whistles Xbox Live provides doesn't change the fact that it locks the online part of all games unless you pay that subcription. A gamer who wants to play online has no choice but to pay for for live, even if he doesn't care about those things you mentioned.

back on topic: It's not fair that contents are blocked because the game was bought used. It's similar to a dealership telling you that because you're buying this car used, we're going to disable the the radio and power windows, and block access to the trunk, even thought those things area already part of the car.

Edit: @ gamingdroid below:
There's nothing wrong with stores making profit, I mean, they are a business just like all other businesses. But there is something wrong with a store offering a buy back value of $8.00 and selling the same game again for just $55.00, only $5 less then the Brand New price.

If I am a developer, or publishing company, and you're selling my product to the point where you can make 3-4 times more profit then me, by selling the same used game over and over again, then we have a serious problem. It' like I'm spending millions and millions of dollars to invest, make, and publish games, and you make more money out of it then I do? yeah, there's a problem.

[Nitrox]

@Cupid_Viper_3

I think a more accurate comparison would be a Manufacturer of the car that offers free satellite radio and oil-changes to the original owner, as a way of saying thank you for supporting us.

The next owner gets a second hand car, there's no reason that a person buying a hand-me-down should be entitled to all the perks of buying something new...

On the other hand, I AM personally disappointed with the way the whole DLC thing has been shaping up this gen, we'll see where it goes though...

[gamingdroid]

@Cupid_Viper_3

***Whatever bell and whistles Xbox Live provides doesn't change the fact that it locks the online part of all games unless you pay that subcription***

... and I don't deny that. I'm just glad there are other options if you don't think what Xbox Live offers is worth paying for.

However, that fee has provided numerous benefits not only for Xbox Live members, but ironically extends to PSN members as well (Sony adopted a lot of features from XBL).

On the other hand, the "online pass" has only rewarded me with cutting out parts of single player game, or the online component entirely i.e. doesn't seek to entice you to pay up by value-add, but instead by value-subtract!

That is a lose-lose proposition to consumers!

@Nitrox

***I think a more accurate comparison would be a Manufacturer of the car that offers free satellite radio and oil-changes to the original owner, as a way of saying thank you for supporting us.***

Except, radio and oil-changes aren't integral part of the car.

It's more like the manufacturer only allows the original owner to drive the car, and if anyone elses try, the manufacturer locks the tires automatically!

***On the other hand, I AM personally disappointed with the way the whole DLC thing has been shaping up this gen, we'll see where it goes though...***

I don't like the way DLC is going either, but at least I feel it is an optional part and I always felt the content is an add-on, not integral part. I do feel uncertain about weapons and characters though....

[Nitrox]

@gamingdroid

So you're saying that when you buy a used game with an online pass you can't pop it in your console and play the campaign from beginning to end? That it is a completely non-functional plastic coaster?

[Cupid_Viper_3]

@ GamingDroid, you said:

"However, that fee has provided numerous benefits not only for Xbox Live members, but ironically extends to PSN members as well (Sony adopted a lot of features from XBL)."

so I'm going to use your own point (directed @ Nitrox) to prove my point, as you told him:

"Except, radio and oil-changes aren't integral part of the car.

It's more like the manufacturer only allows the original owner to drive the car, and if anyone elses try, the manufacturer locks the tires automatically!"

and that's the point, almost all new games have Online built into the game, what Microsoft does is (in your own words) locks the tires of car automatically unless you decide to pay up for all the bells and whistles.

So if you're going to claim that
" However, that fee has provided numerous benefits not only for Xbox Live members, but ironically extends to PSN members as well (Sony adopted a lot of features from XBL)."

Then you must also be willing to claim that the practice of Locking contents that are already on the disc until you pay up really started with Microsoft and Xbox Live. Fair, no?

[badz149]

publishers don't get any money with every used copy sold but they are indeed having to maintain the server for online play. so I'm okay with THAT.

but they are going too far with disc locked content and Online pass for SP game! WTF are those for??

[MrBeatdown]

@gamingdroid

"On the other hand, the "online pass" has only rewarded me with cutting out parts of single player game, or the online component entirely i.e. doesn't seek to entice you to pay up by value-add, but instead by value-subtract!"

Uh, Xbox Live entices millions to buy it by "value-subtract".

That's why you can't access basic online features of the game you already paid for without paying even more for Live. Online passes might not give you all the fancy extras that Live does, but then again, they don't charge you extra even if you buy new.

Hell, I'd be pretty damn happy if I could play my 360 games online just by buying them new.

[SynGamer]

Buying used is putting money into that stores' pockets, not the developer or publisher. So yes, people should pay a bit extra if they are buying used. Perhaps people will smarten up eventually and just pay the extra $5-10 for a game and support the dev/pub so that they can continue to make games you want to play...

[gamingdroid]

... and what is wrong with putting profit into stores?

That's what happens when you buy used anything, but video games! What happened to enticing customers into paying for a product/service instead of sneaking it in, and then slyly stick an expiration date on that Online Pass code. Disgusting!

[vortis]

Uh, the extra money doesn't go to devs anyway it goes to the pubs like EA and Activision.

If you want to support devs so much support the indie community which does away with the publisher middleman.

Also, no one from Hollywood gets a cut from the used game market nor the music industry and the game industry makes more money than both of them combined.

Just sounds like greed-apologists to me.

[SynGamer]

The music and movie industry especially have only themselves to blame for the mess their industries are in. Look no further than "John Carter". It supposedly cost $250 million to make that piece of garbage and it only brought in $30 million this weekend. A good movie does not need such a ridiculous budget.

[vortis]

Hey man, look I'm not disagreeing about the budget fat of Hollywood, I have no plans on seeing a crappy looking movie like John Carter which looks like a cross between Prince of Persia and Avatar.

In the same token I also don't support the game industry in using the same tactics, (i.e., Hollywood actors bloating up a budget that could have gone to more gameplay, disc locked content, day-one DLC)

The used game market isn't as bad as people make it seem though, the NA retail business is a $22 billion dollar industry and EA alone made more than $1 billion alongside Activision in 2011 yet these two are the first-adopters of online-passes and disc-locked content.

More than anything people need to smarten up and not support the big pubs. The game industry is constantly growing at the expense of quality content and always at the expense of consumers.

[PirateThom]

I don't think any features should be locked out, but I do believe that there should be more incentive to buy new. Reward the people buying new with free DLC or access to certain parts of the game before people using a second hand copy (maybe a more powerful gun to start with in online FPS games as an example).

Basically, don't punish anyone, but make your new buyers feel wanted.

Until they do this? I'm more than happy with people paying less getting less content.

[Summons75]

I have no problem with people paying to go online or whatever, it is pure laziness to buy used.

[GamingTruth]

everyones not as wealthy as you though

never knew why i agree with people that seem to be on the same page as me on this site but leave me with like 0 thumbs up and bubble plusses but im about to stop

[Summons75]

I'm not rich either but it's a 5 doller difference so I fail to see your point. Not to mention I have OCD so I refuse to touch a used game, and after working in a used game store and see the way people treat there games disgusts me.

[Pozzle]

"I'm not rich either but it's a 5 doller difference so I fail to see your point."

It depends what store you go to. I buy most of my games online (since I live in Australia where new games range from $80-$120) and I can often find used games being sold for $30-50. As much as I'd love to buy games new all the time and support devs, I'd much rather spend $30-40 on a used game, than $100 on a new one. I can't afford to fork out that kinda cash whenever I want a new game. :(

[vortis]

Buying used is not lazy it's called being frugal.

If EA doesn't like it they shouldn't publish games with 6 hour long single-player campaigns that aren't worth $60.

[PirateThom]

I don't think it's laziness. Often, looking for a used game at a decent price is a pain in the ass.

I think people are just looking to spend as little as possible. However, I can often find really good deals for new games and given the standard "store difference" between a new and used game, I'd rather just pick it up new. Nothing to do with wealth, just the £5 saving doesn't really interest me in a used copy.

People just need to shop around more, online and in stores, for the best deals. I haven't paid RRP for a game in years.

[dericb11]

Used cars don't exchange owners as much as a used game does. Once a car is sold the warrenty goes away and the car manufacturer is not obligated to support the second owner. Support people who pay you and people who don't can join in by paying.

Imagine buying a soda at Mcdonalds. Next sale the cup and that person gets a free drink. You get pay and Mcdonalds gets nothing. That is how used games sales work.

[GamingTruth]

so what mcdonalds is already ripping off millions with mystery meat that cost them no more than 5 cents per patty and fries made out of who knows what and soft drinks which are nothing but drink mixes that could easily be sold the biggest size for 10 cents, but instead you pay over 2 dollars for a drink, who cares if mcdonalds gets nothing, the deserve nothing they oh us

[Soldierone]

The correct example would be if the person buys a drink, drinks some of it, then hands the drink to someone else without refilling it. Is that second person supposed to go pay McDonalds for that drink again just so he can finish drinking it?

You don't pay for the cup, you pay for the drink. A person taking the cup and getting a drink would be a new drink.

[Tachyon_Nova]

Both of your analogies are inaccurate, although dericb11's is more accurate.

Dericb11's is not entirely accurate because that drink is finite, they aren't offering you unlimited drinks like a game offers you theoretically unlimited play.

Soldierones analogy is innacurate because it forgets that mcdonalds, the analogous to the developer/publisher of a game IS providing the second hand user a service, that service comes in the form of connection to the games online servers.

The "Used Car" analogy also is irrelevant because either too forgets that a game developer/publisher is offering service which costs them money to run in the case of multi player and access to servers. For the used car analogy to work, it would have to be the case that a car dealer is responsible for servicing the car for the rest of its life free of charge. As a new game buyer you dont have to pay to 'have your car serviced' as the cost of the services are added to the cost of the game. However, if that game is sold on, then the amount of money it costs to run the servers increases, yet there is no more money coming in to the publisher to offset the cost of maintaining the servers. So, the online pass balances this equation. The other way to balance the equation of course would be to increase the price of a new game to counteract having to support users they never saw a cent from. Ask yourself which you would prefer.

[Soldierone]

The "service" is the cup. So he has to go pay McDonalds again to drink the rest of the drink because of the cup? If thats the case, you'd dump it out and use someone elses free cup. The comparison? You want me to pay just so I can play on your online servers? Cool story, Ill be over there where its free.

I think car companies can be a good comparisons, what other industry is as greedy and full of "loop holes" in everything than them? You want the game industry to be like that?

[garos82]

NO

[krisq]

In my country you have to pay bigger tax when you buy a used car.

[Soldierone]

To this day have not a single time purchased an online pass. If you put it there, give me an absolutely crappy single player, alright Ill buy used and take it back or just rent it. Thanks for saving me money.

Would I be willing to pay an extra 5 dollars or so at Gamestop so some of the profits go to the greedy dev? Sure why not, but buy an online pass? Nope.

And to all the people that constantly post "Its just 5 dollars! Just spend the extra 5 dollars!" THATS NEW GAMES! Gamestop sells TONS of titles at nearly half the price or cheaper used.

[Awesome_Gamer]

HELL NO!!!

[palaeomerus]

The server thing is bullcrap. The guy selling the game gives up his server slot. The guy buying it used does not require an additional server slot. Since you need the physical game to play, you only need as many server slots as you have copies of the game. Trading, lending, selling, don't increase the need for server slots because whoever gives up physical possession of the game can't play any more. The maximum number of required server slots is FIXED. It does not grow and thus used games do NOT cost the publisher more for server slots.

[hazelamy]

if it's something that requires an active ongoing service like them hosting multiplayer games, then there is an argument for it, though i refuse to support that.
but when it's single player content that has clearly been cut from the main game and requires no further work from the devs/publisher?
hell no.

i don't get why this industry thinks they have any right to keep getting paid again and again and again even though they got paid once and they're not doing any more work.

and dick developers say it's the gamers that have an inflated sense of entitlement, bloody hypocritical arseholes.

while it's too early to say this industry is dead to me, it is on it's last legs.