Online Passes : Enough is Enough

PCN: "We all know about the dreaded online pass that EA has started. New games come with special codes to unlock the online portion of games. Anybody that purchases these games used has to then go to the online store and buy the code, which normally runs at 10 to 15 dollars. The code can only be used on one account, and has tons of issues arising as the days go on. Before we step any further, we do support new developers and we do support the idea of finding a way to show them our support. However the idea of punishing people buying used games is not the solution and here is why."

[Hanif-876]

I think its a good idea for them implementing the online pass. Its better the publisher than GameStop ripping me off!

[DirtyLary]

Exactly. Ban used game sales or STFU. Devs and publishers losing out on profits while GS makes a killin off their work.

[hazelamy]

how are they losing out on profits exactly?
they got paid their fair share for every copy that ends up being sold preowned.

it's only gaming that's so full of greedy cunts like ea that they actually think they deserve more than their fair share.

if they think game stores are unfairly making money on the games they need to go after the store, but no, they cant afford to do that can they, they know know if they fuck over the stores the stores will tell them to fuck off.

if the stores are making money illegally, the publishers need to sue them.
but they haven't, because despite what these greedy fuckbags think, it's perfectly legal.

and these bullshit schemes don't just affect stores.
they also affect private sellers, they affect people lending or giving away their games.

they also affect families.
what do you say to a mother with two kids arguing because one of them cant play the latest fifa online because ea are a bunch of greedy fucking cunts?

[caseh]

'Exactly. Ban used game sales or STFU. Devs and publishers losing out on profits while GS makes a killin off their work.'

Should we apply this attitude to used car sales as well? While we are at it lets also apply it to used DVDs/Blu-Rays and music CDs.

How dare consumers be allowed to sell on their goods to anyone who has a business sense to make a profit from someone elses unwanted goods...

[DirtyLary]

"how are they losing out on profits exactly? "

You really can't see the problem here??????? Instead of buying a new copy of the game as intended, players buy a used copy, which circumvents the devs/pub getting their royalties on a new game purchase, only GS makes a profit. How hard is it to figure out. Stop being cheap bastards. Maybe it's time to rethink your hobby of choice.

In a business plagued by pirating killing profits and development companies, the last thing gaming needs is devs/pub losing even more money they rightly deserve.

[Ethereal]

@hazelamy

So I want to spend 10 million dollars to develop a game. Once the game ships to retail you discover modest sales but then find that 50% of future sales were preowned in which you receive no money for. Instead you cease production of said game and gamers are forced to buy preowned and you end up losing out on alot of money that could have been made. I don't see you complaining if it was your investment.

[hazelamy]

if 50% of sales of the game are preowned, then most new buyers must have sold their copy, there has to be a reason for that.

if you make a shit game are we supposed to subsidise you because you spent a lot of money on it?
fuck that noise.

they make shit games or what is virtually the same fucking game they made the year before, and the year before that.

this is a free market economy, if your product is a pile of shit it wont sell.

answer one question, why do these publishers deserve more than their fair share.

dirtylary, you say "In a business plagued by pirating killing profits and development companies, the last thing gaming needs is devs/pub losing even more money they rightly deserve."

firstly, preowned nothing like piracy, and i am sick of that fucking propaganda bullshit from the publishers.

secondly.
tthey do not rightly deserves a single fucking thing once they've got paid for that copy.
they got THEIR FAIR FUCKING SHARE.
and that's all they should fucking get, like every opther business has to.

why do people suck these fucking publisher's cocks when they say they can take from us what they have no fucking right to.

you can support these cunts if you like, but i say you're the ones who are akin to the fucking pirates, because you're the one supporting fucking criminals.

[Biggest]

OMFGBOUHDCIEUGHEYIRTT!(!*()@#& amp;(*^&

STOP WITH THE CAR ANALOGIES!!! Cars are not games. The same rules do NOT apply. Once you buy a car, it's your car. The manufacturer has nothing to do with your car anymore unless you ask (pay) for their involvement. Games with online funtions are maintained by the developers/staff. They work on the game before, during, and after its sale. They should not be forced to provide ANYTHING for a consumer that didn't ask (pay) for their services.

[Ducky]

"secondly.
tthey do not rightly deserves a single fucking thing once they've got paid for that copy.
they got THEIR FAIR FUCKING SHARE."

You're right, they got their fair share for that one copy you bought.
Now they want to impose their share on every used copy that gets bought thereafter.
What's wrong with that? They made the game, so they're free to do what they want with it.

You got a problem with the publisher/dev wanting more money off a game they made, but you're fine with letting shops like GameStop sell you over-priced used games? O.o

[caseh]

@Biggest

Sorry but the analogies are fair. Regardless of what you might think, your argument of online functions is irrelevant. All developers state the same thing, it is something that is considered to be 'additional' content as it isn't the main functionality of the product. The only exception to this that I am aware of is MAG on PS3 that is online only.

Gamestop simply recycle unwanted games in the same way a showroom may take unwanted cars. If this analogy was to hold true, it would be like Toyota saying 'oh by the way, if you're buying our car pre-owned you need to pay us X amount to be able to use the air-con' which is complete horse shit.

[BeastlyRig]

If you got rid of gamestop(The middle man) who takes a cut it would stop ripping the devs off!

that will happen soon when console games become digital..

[gamingdroid]

Online Passes is the surest way of killing your online community. We all know, the types of games that people hold on to the longest are online games!

G'luck!

[Kur0]

Fifa 11 has an online pass and it is still the most played online sports game out there. The general public probably isn't bothered too much about online passes.

[Biggest]

Yeah, that made no sense. If online games are the type of game that people hold on to the longest, wouldn't they also be the type of game that people purchase new and keep?

[gamingdroid]

Consider this when

a) the biggest games sell gazillion already, so they don't need online pass to be profitable

b) they also don't have an issue with communities as plenty of people own it

c) they are also the type of game that everyone is familiar with

It is the smaller less known games that will suffer, because nobody is willing to pay $10 to try out online gaming to see if they like it. You want as many people to play your game as possible, because that is a potential future sale.

Taking up front online fees (apart from being bad for the consumer) is putting barriers in front of your potential customer.

[Jonmau5]

I read through this article on your site and I think this article has made more sense than anything else I have ever read on here.

I agree completely with you much of what you say in the article, the EA pass that locks the online play is a poor idea. The Alice way of giving you extra if you buy it new but not preventing you from playing the game is a better route to take.

I even don't mind when in games like Homefront or Need For Speed Hot Pursuit when you get a 7 day trial of the online pass or you can play online until you reach rank 5. These are better ways to go about it.

I rented Dirt 3 but I can't play it online OR upload any videos through the in game feature to Youtube without being forced to buy a pass for a game that once rented and played I will send back.

The game companies who restrict games with these passes are still paid a premium fee from Lovefilm and rental services... so why do the customers who use these rental services get punished?

[Grave]

One of the main reasons I stopped using Gamefly. I play less games because of it too. Charge me to play. No thx.

[Rocket Sauce]

I'm almost positive American McGee's Alice was originally going to be an extra freebie on the disc, then they cut it out and online-passified it.

[Jonmau5]

The original game being included is simply only an add on extra, it does not affect anyone who rents or buys the game pre used other than they won't be able to play the original game.

I like the way Spicy Horse (developer) handled EA when it came to Alice: MR

[Rocket Sauce]

I agree, it's cool that the original game is there - I'm playing it right now and loving it - but they're not really rewarding new buyers, they're just holding content back from everybody else.

That's why I can't get behind online (or offline in this case) passes.

[Kur0]

Alice doesn't have online play which is why they used that method.

[TacoTaru]

It's a great idea. A used copy of a newish game at GameStop is only about $5 less than a new copy. They can still charge that price and include an online pass and make a profit. Not as much of a profit as they do now because the publisher will actually receive something. I'm sure that GameStop could work out a bulk purchase discount when buying the online passes from the publisher to include in their used games.

[hazelamy]

all you need to know is, the publisher got what they were legally entitled to when the game was sold the first time.

they have no right to any more than that.
zero, nix, nada, nil points, not a bloody sausage.

it's only in gaming that the publishers want more than what they're legally entitled to.

[--Onilink--]

with that kind of thinking we are going to be out of game developers very soon. Imagine you make a game where 40-50% of the ppl who play it buy it used. How do you think games are made??? with money, they dont fund themselves with good thougts.

[hazelamy]

well fucking good then, if they think they can violate our rights for their fucking greed they deserve to fucking go out of business.

god the way you peaple kiss their arse is fucking pathetic.

once i've bought the game i own it, i can do whatever the fuck i like with it, so long as it's legal.
and reselling my games is 100% legal.

the publisher can keep its greedy fucking claws off.

[Kur0]

You're a selfish bastard. Do you even know what its like for a game studio to close because of used game sales. Lets say your game wasn't too popular but it grew word of mouth to the point that 3 months later everyone is buying it but they decide to get it used. That would be a total bummer so at least you would take in some revenue from the 10$ online pass.

[Rocket Sauce]

Nobody is going out of business because of used games.

[Biggest]

Nope. Just poor sales. I wonder if people playing poorly selling games without paying for them has anything to do with that. . .

[cogniveritas]

Seems like certain people like a free market less and less when they realize that their business model isn't as easily profitable as they hoped. Free markets are supposed to provide equal trades. They games we buy already include government interference (necessary to uphold and protect the digital games IP market) by way of EULAs and TOS. So as if the stipulations on how we can use the property we buy weren't already enough, the industry wants to take it into their own hands (it's their fair market right) by imposing more online passes to complicate the free market at our expense.

The way I see it, this is like a tax on gamers who buy from ebay or borrow from a friend. In this case, if publishers/developers want to profit off of their product multiple times over once it's out of their hands, I also want to profit off of my money many times over that I worked hard for as well. It's not fair that I'm not benefiting off of my hard work more than once right? (Just like they are complaining about). Let's tell the publishers and developers that we want to have control over what they do with our money just like they control what we do with their games. And if the developers/publishers spend our money that we gave them, we want a "transaction pass fee" from the entity they spend our money with. Because why should another entity come along an benefit from the developers/publishers using the money we went to work to earn, and we don't get any extra fee from it? Let's keep the free market equal.

[--Onilink--]

the problem with that, is that the person who is selling the game or taking it to GS,amazon,etc is also getting extra money out of the game, even though they didnt make the game right? the benefit that you get out of buying a game should be the time you play it, right?

that way everything is equal, developer spends money to make game -> you spend money to buy game -> you enjoy the game -> developer gets some profit so they can continue to exist.

developers are not making any type of money out of second hand sales even though it means ppl are playing the game they spend a lot of money to create.

Also considering u can get used games for around $20-$25 at most, and the retail price on those is $60, why are ppl complaining when they are still not paying retail price with the pass included

[cogniveritas]

I disagree with that the person who is selling the game is getting extra money out of it. If a person spends $60 on a game there is almost no way they can ever recover their $60. They could likely get $45 or less depending on how long they wait to sell it. Which means they will at least take a net loss of $15. The gamer who sells the game when they are done makes ABSOLUTELY NO profit off of the game when you consider the price they paid to buy it because they don't end up with more money than they started with. And that is fair, because the gamer did pay the price for enjoying the game, and it's their right to sell it when they are don't to cut their loss and beat the price depreciation.

And as you say, developers don't make any profit off of a game in second hand sales once it leaves their hands. That is how the market works. I don't get any future investment profit or dividends off of the money I give to the retailers or from the percentage that reaches the publisher/developers. My money becomes theirs to do what they wish, and their game becomes mine to resell if I wish.

And for the record, I'm just expressing my opinion, obviously it is also the market right of the developers to participate in an online pass program, but that doesn't make it a wise choice. They are essentially placing a $10 value on the online portion of their games. Does that mean that single player only games should now be valued at $50 new because there is not a $10 online segment?

[air1]

I do not buy games that require online pass anymore. . The last game ingot that requires it is mk and it will def be the last.

Devs need to handle this directly with gamestop and others. Open your own online stor or a small retail store like gamestop, and comepete with them directly with new and used games instead of this bs! It's not co that my Lil bro can't go online with a game I let him borrow.

And considering I get most my multiplats on the 360, I already pay to play online to cv king begin with! I'm either going to buy a lot less games or buy the
All on the ps3 since online is free incase I ever do buy a used game then that 10 or 15 won't be as bad.

[Rocket Sauce]

I guess it's just much easier for them to attack their fans directly.

Mortal Kombat kind of made me bitter about gaming in general, with their online pass and charging extra for stuff that's obviously already on the disc.

[Schade]

I am with air1 on this. I am opting out on all Online Pass games going forward. The fact that I cannot share my games with friends or use the game on my second console in my own frigging house without logging into the same account is absurd.

Not to mention that this kills the Rental market.

The only way they hear us is by voting with our wallets. If you don't care then that is your right but those of us that do will just go elsewhere for our entertainment.

[air1]

I just wish more console gamers did the same we have the power to change certain things like this but we NEVER ban together to get the message across like pc gamers do.

Just look at the crazy deals pc gamers get on older games! On top of mods etc. And new games cost 50! Why the he'll we pay more for a console version with less features?! It's cause the devs know what pc gamers will pay and what console gamers would pay and they clearly take advantage of that.

From the looks of things by nxt gen I just may be more of a pc gamer. I'm not saying I won't buy the consoles next gen but I will only be buying the exclusives on each console and everything else on pc.

I wish I would have started pc gaming a long time ago but once im done with my car and have the time to build a pc I'm all in. I love consoles, been playing them since the atari days but I'm about tired of paying more for less on top of this online pass bs.

Note to devs! Some of us already pay to play online so stop the bs and open your own damn stores, sell your own damn games it's not my fault you depend on others to sell your games it's just a disc box it's not like your selling sofas. It's not anyone's fault you failed to see the potential gamestop saw years ago with trade ins. Devs just wish that profit was theirs, sadly it should be but they can do something better than this.

[Saryk]

Ok guys I am a PC only gamer. So there is no trading in our games for the most part. However if I could, I wouldn't use Gamestop, I would Ebay them.

Why does everyone cry about Gamestop doing what they do?

I have a choice to sell game to whom ever. And I have a choice to buy my next game from whom ever.

[Ethereal]

So in that logic. Companies have the right to include a one time use code that says "Hey you buy new and your golden, you buy preowned to save a buck you need to buy and online pass." Blame this idea on the "gamers" fascination of multiplayer this generation. This wouldn't be a problem if more games were single player like they used to be. Sounds perfectly logical to me.

[caseh]

Dude PC gamers been playing online for over 10 years not just this generation. They have the right idea with PC games though, Instead of a one off code you have a serial key with the game that allows you access to play online.

Even if the game is sold onto someone else they can use that code as long as it isn't already in use and I can't say ive ever had a problem with any pre-owned pc games online.

[Ethereal]

The PC serial key code is the exact same thing. It discourages reselling the game. Although with a PC once it is used you cannot access online at all. With the current passes you just need to pay for the pass. The idea is one in the same.

[Schade]

I have NO idea why people resell to Gamestop other than they are uninformed. There are multiple avenues to resell (and in fact rent your own games to gamers) that provide much greater value.