The Online Pass: A Slippery Slope

The online pass has been generating a lot of controversy lately. Not happy with the lack of revenue that used game sales generate, game publishers have taken to introducing the online pass - a one time activation code that comes with new copies of games, which allows you to play online. If you buy the game used, then you usually have to pay an extra $10 if you want to play the game's online multiplayer. However, we're less concerned about the state of the online pass now, and more fearful about what it means for the future.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Inside_out2842d ago (Edited 2842d ago )

"Publishers and developers don't make a dime off of used purchases "...O_o

Has everyone gone mad in this world? If it's used then they made $60-80 on the original purchase. Why do the sheeple out there think these guys OWN that game for life and should make any money from the selling of the game when they already made their money from the original's crazy!!!

Can you imagine if society was to adopt this retarded idea/philosophy for ALL products...hell, why not, dumb gamers think it's ok. Buy a used car, hey, those car manufacturers need to make money to OK. How about a toaster? Houses, give something to the original builder 20 years ago, he needs to make a living too...where does it end? It's $60 so it's different as one of the sheeple told me. :/

If you walk into a store that sells used game, who pays the rent there? Who stocks the shelves? Who is responsible for providing everything in that store? It not EA or Sony or M$, I can tell you so why do they feel that they can walk right in there and tax the business for selling used and NEW games btw. These businesses are providing a service for gamers everywhere. You walk in to buy the latest game and end up maybe buying a couple used games as well, maybe a new console and some gaming peripherals...what's the problem.

Only a idiot would buy a used game that is $5 less than new as some sheeple have told me they cost. I visit used gaming stores all the time, used games are far less than just $5 off a new game. The true cost reflects how the game is being sells near full price at Walmart for example and costs maybe $29.99 or less used. Games that review badly drop like a rock as stores try and dump the games before the sheeple hear the bad news...the system works. EA wants you to pay no matter if the game is good or bad. Every time the game is used, they want $10 for the life of the game. O_o

make a good game and you will sell all the units you can make. If your game sucks, tough luck, I don't feel sorry for you. All COD games still sell at a high price because they are worth it with NO play passes. MOH, released less than a year ago sells for $ can see why EA-Dice is trying to have a plan B for Battlefield 3.

beastgamer2841d ago (Edited 2841d ago )

its all about money, greed, forcing you to pay 60 for one game, denying anyone that can't afford it, making you suffer when your tired of the game and no one wants to buy it used off of you, corporations having more money than the government cough*Apple*cough* MS forcing us to pay for their services while Sony PS Plus is building features you would like free (auto-Trophy) sync, but then again we still pay for an online pass! Forcing us cheap and poor to pay what the rich does, mainly in an economy like this.
Excuses: We need to pay for severs. BS, EA with your Billions of dollars. I was hoping for Battlefield 3 from Dice, no EA but then again you lock steam out to support yourself with origin installed on everyone's computers just to get hits, and even since Activison doesn't do that shit with COD, they just event their copy and paste for you to pay up each f***ing year.
Hey, your gonna buy all 4 Black Ops map packs, well, you just paid 60 dollars bitch, for something that should of been in the final game.
This is why my money is going to one game
"Deus Ex Human Revolution" Reveal the conspiracy!
I Won't Stop, Reveal!
They had no problem before, but why now

eraursls842841d ago

Your logic is off, its software and you don't own it, your licensed to use it, anyone who buys second hand isn't licensed to use it. This has been going on with pc games for a long time. I'm not saying its right or wrong, but it is different your home analogy.

knifefight2842d ago

It's a slippery slope that will get as steep as consumers let it.

GroundsKeeperJimbo2842d ago (Edited 2842d ago )

Courtesy of Wikipedia: The slippery slope as fallacy

The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done—an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy.

Often proponents of a "slippery slope" contention propose a long series of intermediate events as the mechanism of connection leading from A to B. The "camel's nose" provides one example of this: once a camel has managed to place its nose within a tent, the rest of the camel will inevitably follow. In this sense the slippery slope resembles the genetic fallacy, but in reverse.

As an example of how an appealing slippery slope argument can be unsound, suppose that whenever a tree falls down, it has a 95% chance of knocking over another tree. We might conclude that soon a great many trees would fall, but this is not the case. There is a 5% chance that no more trees will fall, a 4.75% chance that exactly one more tree will fall (and thus a 9.75% chance of 1 or fewer additional trees falling), and so on. There is a 92.3% chance that 50 or fewer additional trees will fall. The expected value of trees that will fall is 20. In the absence of some momentum factor that makes later trees more likely to fall than earlier ones, this "domino effect" approaches zero probability.

This form of argument often provides evaluative judgments on social change: once an exception is made to some rule, nothing will hold back further, more egregious exceptions to that rule.

Note that these arguments may indeed have validity, but they require some independent justification of the connection between their terms: otherwise the argument (as a logical tool) remains fallacious.

The "slippery slope" approach may also relate to the conjunction fallacy: with a long string of steps leading to an undesirable conclusion, the chance of all the steps actually occurring in sequence is less than the chance of any one of the individual steps occurring alone.

TLDR: This argument is not sound, and the article dosen't even use the argument used in its headline. It was more of a guess than a slippery-slope.