game-sait: Why an online pass-key could be good for gamers

game-sait writes: Online pass-key’s make you sick? What if we tell you that pass-key’s might actually be good for the gaming industry and ultimately the gamer?

[christheredhead]

i understand that developers own the multiplayer aspect as you are using their servers but to say its stealing to buy a second hand copy is pure exaggeration. i know they dont get paid but i dont see it as unfair. they received money off their initial sale so essentially trying to double charge consumers is theft in itself.

there is a second hand market for virtually everything and i dont think there should be a double standard for video game developers. sure it might be a little unfair compared to other second hand products as there is less profit per game sold but if they stop short changing me on the dlc aspect of content maybe i would pick up more games at 60 dollars. im not directly relating my comment to mortal kombat but the online pass in general. its a very flawed system that i just dont agree with.

[Dart89]

Well here's my counter argument as to why an online pass can be bad for gamers.

Not everyone can buy games at full price look at the economy were in and now they have the nerve of charging us to play online within the same house.I mean come on i have 3 other bros that play on the same ps3 as me which means where gonna have to waste another $30 on top of the $60 we just spent on buying the game.Just so they can play online.

I don't know about you guys but this generation of video games is fu**ed up what happen to when devs made games for enjoyment and not a quick buck sigh wish we were still in the 1990's and early 2000.

[GoDHanDSama]

I agree to some extent, but It's difficult to put a value on intellectual property, plus you can't compare games to let's say furniture for example, because the mechanics are completely different.
1 question can you call a Mobile phone you got on contract yours? only after the contract expires can you call it yours.

[thethiny]

we just want free! games not more CASH!
thanks for the meaningful feedback.

[thethiny]

it is good for the developers so that if we try to sell our game they need to buy it again and more 3$ every time so lets say 1mil players = 3mil$

so a fortune from online pass key!

[shuuwai]

i don't understand why they can't use serial key,
that'll kill the used game buz. and console games may
be lower to 49.99 again.

sure you could use a fake key, but once you login your whole account might get ban. *smile*

Yet, i think it's slap against the owner of the copy who wishes to resale it.

1. they must sale it for less.
2. GS will sale for the same price or 50 cent of the original price for use games.
3. 2nd owners need to folk over 10.00 to play online.

Example.

I pay 69.99 for new copy of MK.
1wk later
I sale it to G-STOP for 1/2 the price.
G-STOP sales for 65-60.00
second owner picks up a used copy, logs on psn and pays 10 to play online.

so 65+10= 75.00, and this game is used.

new game 69.99

reason i said this is ....

COD black ops used was 5.00 less than the new cod black ops copy.

[coryok]

i wont support any way that publishers try and milk the consumers. did you know that ea sold tiger woods golf for 60$ and it only had access to half of the campaign? once you got half way through the game it stopped you and has you start paying per level.

thats ridiculous. when publishers start milking something it ends up like that

[hazelamy]

practically stealing?
fuck off, what about ea, the biggest (ab)user of the online pass blocking a user from playing their legally bought single player game because of some bad language on a forum.
that's theft, so don't give me this "online passes are good for gamers" bullshit, because they're not.

the publisher got paid for that copy of the game, that copy's access has been paid for, there is still only one person accessing the server, the original user isn't and now the new user is.
the original user might even be playing the new version paid for in part by trading in the old version.

you could argue that locking off the online portion is reasonable, i would just almost.
but it's where this will lead to that worries me.
if console games go down the totalitarian route that pc games have gone and lock games to a single user or account then this industry will truly be dead to me.

this is greed, pure and simple.

[CrimsonEngage]

Damn those bastards wanting to get paid for their work...

[hazelamy]

funny, because they already did, every single preowned copy was paid for when it was sold new, why is the gaming industry suddenly allowed to make money from preowned sales when no other industry in the world does.
look up first sale doctrine, once they've sold it, then they forsake any claim to controlling what people do with their copy, so long as they're not doing anything illegal with it like pirating it the publisher has no right to dictate what we do with it once we've bought it.

this is greed, desire to make a profit is one thing, but the games industry has gone too far this time, greed, pure and simple, and i will always condemn a company for that.

if they have such a big problem, why don't they buy back our games, if it's little more than stealing when the shops do it, why don't they do it?

but they won't, they'd rather rip off their customers with crap like this and annual roster updates falsely called new games.

fuck em i say, i will never buy a game with an online pass new, i may miss out of a few games, but i'll survive, but as more people decide enough is enough, the publishers might not.

this industry is heading for a crash if it carries on the way it's going, and the sad thing is the greedy fucks running the companies will be fine, they'll have made more money than they can spend in their lifetime anyway, it's the people actually doing the work making the games that will suffer, they don't get seven figure salaries, when they lose their jobs they'll be in trouble.

[hazelamy]

i would go so far as to question the legality of systems like this online pass, and stuff like steam on disc games on pc.

at least for the us.
there's something called first sale doctrine.
it states that publishers have no control over the transfer of copyrighted works after the original sale, so long as the work was not transferred illegally, say by piracy.
basically that means once we've bought the game/film/book the publisher has no legal right to stop us transferring that copy to another person, by selling it, giving it away or lending it so a friend.
but that's just what these systems do.

and don't say the license agreement says they can, because the law will always supercede any license agreement.

[GoDHanDSama]

I think it was pointed out, that when you pay $60 what you rightfully own is the Single player campaign or any DLC's you may buy. I also agree with the notion that $60 is way too much to be paying for especially when the Publisher can still take it away from you, in the case of the user who was banned by EA.

That kind of abuse is something we should fight against as gamers, If publishers want to control how we play the games we buy, they might as well make it a service where you pay a monthly fee to access, the same way Warcraft requires you to pay.

Now with that said I think gamers still need to pay the publisher if they want access to online services.
People please stop comparing the sale/value of games to thing like furniture. The sale of intellectual property is far more complicated.

Please click the Approve button, if you Approve of this article