For a little over a couple years, gamers have dreaded the online pass. It’s a shot to the heart of gaming, and with false excuses from companies, and more and more publishers taking on the practice, it seems unavoidable. But what if the online pass is one of the best things to happen to the gaming industry?
Microsoft just posted the third quarter of its 2024 fiscal financial results. The software maker made $61.9 billion in revenue and a net income of $21.9 billion during Q3. Revenue is up 17 percent, and net income has increased by 20 percent.
Xbox content + services up 62% while hardware down 31%... seems about right with the way they tout you don't need the hardware to play. People can play on their phones or smart tv or other means. I don't hardly play on my consoles directly since getting devices like the logitech g-cloud and ps portal. Which is to also say I have been playing more digital than physical because of these devices.
Too expensive hardware when others offer the same or more for less? Good work, Green Team.
"Despite some early successes for Xbox games on rival platforms, Xbox hardware is down by a massive 31 percent this quarter."
"Without Activision Blizzard, Microsoft’s overall gaming revenue would have actually declined this quarter."
"Xbox content and services would have only been up a single percent without Activision Blizzard..."
"It looks like next quarter is going to be a similar story for gaming at Microsoft, too."
That is crazy... so A/B/K is carrying the whole Xbox gaming.
Oh and Microsoft will be fine. Windows, Office and Cloud are growing with each pc purchase.
As of right now, there are no monopolies in the games industry, and for the sake of the medium as a whole, they never should either.
And yet the biggest tech companies in America are essentially that. They buy up all the small comps only to kill them off and steal what they have, and if they can't buy em they bleed them to death.
They buy IPs not talent. That's why these buyouts never work and the IPs die. Right now it's too expensive to develop games - but I expect that to shift maybe as AI tools can make it easier. The best games have been indie games for awhile as big developers fuck their ips to death with "games as a service" -
GL compiles a list of some of the most mind-blowing video game narrative twists in recent memory, from The Last of Us to Outer Wilds
With articles like these cant you tag the games mentioned so that we can know ahead of time if there’s a spoiler to avoid?
Not clicking on your article otherwise.
Alrighty then... tell me what percentage of that online pass revenue goes to the developers (not the publisher)...
Also player information takes up space on the database so while used games may not increase the server load it does use up storage space... but is that storage space worth $15? NOPE (I know a bit about how online games work since I am currently making one)
They then may argue that those buying used would have otherwise bought the game new but my stance on this is that a game is only worth what I am willing to pay. If I don't want to pay $60 for a certain game but am willing to pay $40 I will buy the best product available at that price. If a new copy of the game got discounted to that price I would gladly pay it, otherwise I may decide to get a used copy at with a target price at around $30 (as I value that particular game to be $40 when new...)
Not everyone buys that way of course but the other point I will make is that it should be the job of the developers to reduce the amount of used games available for resale... make a game that I would be highly unwilling to sell... If the game is fun, deep, and offers lots of replay value there will be far less used copies on the market. (or even make a game people would get emotionally attached to)
Too often this gen games have left me unsatisfied and they start collecting dust. The only notable exceptions for me are Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, Valkyria Chonicles, and SOCOM: Confrontation.
Last gen this list would have been much longer...
Oh yay, another article to bring down.
"For starters, the online pass encourages buying new."
No it doesn't. What it actually does is either encourage piracy (so the individual literally only pays $10 for a $60 game) or encourage no actual purchase. When people feel ripped off, they tend to not like it and avoid it altogether.
"Would you rather your money go to the people responsible for the game, or your friend, or Gamestop?"
Considering that the people who make the game aren't selling me the game (they sold it to Gamestop to begin with), I don't care who gets the money off a used sale. The publishers/developers were already paid for the one game they supplied, they shouldn't be paid again and again for that one copy.
"While this claim is partially correct, it has to be said that by buying used, you’re giving the developer 0 dollars and taking up server space."
I hate this lie. Look, if someone bought a game new, got sick of it and sold it to a friend, his/her space is being taken up on the server. Not a brand new space. It's not a new game that requires a new spot. It's a used game that already had a spot assigned to it. And in the off chance that it does require a new spot, what do you think happen to the old one? That's right, it's gone.
"While it does punish those without internet access who may buy the game new, it also makes sure that, again, the money goes towards the developer."
You haven't explained why the developer deserves multiple payments on ONE copy. Why should gamers be punished for greed? The developer didn't do anything to earn that extra payment, so why should they get it?
"the developers and publishers just want to be paid for what’s rightfully theirs."
Which they are every time they sell copies to Gamestop.
"If you enjoy something, you should support those who make it if you want to see more of it."
Which they are every time they sell copies to Gamestop.
"The online pass may be, at first glance, a horrible idea. But upon further inspection, all it is is a request from publishers and developers to be paid for what they’ve put hundreds of hours of their life into."
Nope, it's still a horrible idea. Again, they haven't done anything extra to earn extra payment. In any other industry in the world this is a clearly understood concept. In the gaming industry, publishers and developers believe they are entitled to more money they didn't earn because they didn't provide anything additional to what is already on the disc that was bought and paid for.
"And that, my friends, is why the online pass is the best thing to happen to the industry this gen."
And you just went Full Retard. Never go Full Retard.
online passes SUCK when you rent your games
I assume Always-Online will be a good thing after a couple of years , right ?
The only justification for online passes is greed. The initial sale is all they should get. I don't understand how people can say its not supporting the dev. I guess buying used cars isn't supporting the car makers. Or a house thats not new............ you get the picture.
The issue here is that companies like EA see the money gamestop makes on used games, and have now tried to find a way to get in on it. And THAT is why online passes exist.