Online passes and one angry gamer

So, you go into your local store to pick up the latest game, dipping in and paying full price, brand new on release. You get all the way home, pop your newly acquired purchase into your console, looking forward to enjoying everything the game has to offer. Just as you are about to jump online with your friends to blow people up in multiplayer madness, you see the lovely words “To play this portion of the game you must pay a subscription”. Ok, so that’s embellishing on what rarely happens at the moment, but this is something that could be something we face in the future.

[7SBuzzLightyear7S]

If you paid full price, the online pass is inside of the case. If not, a redeemable code will allow you to download the access pass from your online service.

Why would this person, who bought a brand new, legitimate copy of a game, be angry?

[zerocool3397]

You should read all the article. Its not about what we get now, its about what could happen in the future. Changing the online pass to a subscription based service. How it could affect gamers!

[7SBuzzLightyear7S]

Ha. Touche. =]

I see where you're coming from though. The introduction of an online pass did not please many people, but how much did that halt the number of sales? Not questioning what you had to say, but it would be interesting to see those numbers.

It would be a real kick in the teeth, for any gamer. If the developers want to look at other means for raking in a profit, I do hope that they opt for something else, because let's face it - we pay enough, for games that being released incomplete.

Compare this 'digital age' to cartridges and I think anyone with a gaming background will see what I mean.

[zerocool3397]

The point is publishers complaining about the second hand game market. Forcing people to buy new so that they receive more of the piece of the pie. Like if you go buy Tiger Woods new, you get all the online features by putting in a code. When you get it second hand, you have to pay to get the online features. Its technically not fair because you have still paid for the game. If they introduce subscriptions, that's taking it one step further. We as gamers are getting punished when we haven't really done anything wrong!

[Scary69]

Well if you buy homefront used you have to pay a subscription, but buying brand new gives you the online pass to play the online features. Now if gaming companies are going to charge $60 and on top of that we have to pay a subscription then those are the games I will stay away from.

[Scyrus]

this is what happens when millions of copys get sold as used.

company gets no profit and the company needs profit to keep making games.

you want online? buy the game new. if its only a 5 buck difference in used price, why buy it used? tho the average is 10 bucks difference still.

now if u find the game for 20 bucks and the game is still 60 in stores then hey u made out good, then pay for online pass and ur still good.

but if subscriptions came along I dont see how that would make sense, I mean xbox live gold members already pay just to play online, it would suck to have subs to COD and other games, especially when alot of other games have crappy online thats just tossed in, or u dont know if u will like it.

meh, times change

[Tired]

Have no problem with one off codes,

Would point blank refuse to play a game with subscription.

[frelyler]

There will always be a company that chooses not to do this to steal from companies that would. The game might not be as high in the production values, but I think people should never submit to somehing like this. What about all the poor people who already pay for an online service. It becomes a very risky move. I think activision will try it first, I feel they will bc sales will slow for cod. Its the nature of the beast, they will blame it on used sales,but in reality something the general public views as better will be the real culprit. The worst thing that could have happened to gaming was for it to go "mainstream." Give me back the days of full throttle and genius game design over flair and shiny paint. As soon as the "mass consumer" becomes involved in something it is forever ruined because it becomes a game of "how can we put as little effort in while maximizing profits." The game industry was not started that way and sadly that is what it has become. Prime example and public enemy number one is cod and halo (excluding the first one which was a labor of love and a gamble.) This is coming from someone who hates anything m$.

[jessupj]

Well said freyler.

I love gaming, it's awesome, but it could be in a much better place than it is right now. I could write an essay on this subject, but I'll stop.

Back to the article, I very much understand the need for developers to recoup their losses. I myself rent 90% of the games I play because it's infinitely cheaper then buying. I like to play the hell out of a game, obtain the platinum, then sit it of the shelve and never look at it again.

There are of course a few exceptions. Games like battlefield, LBP, demon's souls are amazing games that I can keep coming back to. A majority of games, while their great, don't have this quality and so I rent.

I believe developers are completely with in their rights to expect that if a person plays their game, said person should be paying them. Now you can stand on your own soapbox and tell me it's my money I can do what I dam well please with it, and if I want to sell my games and buy used I will. However, in reality this is a big F you to the developer.

They have invested a lot of time and money (and no doutb a lot of immotion) into the games they make and they deserve to be financially compenstated.

Maybe if they were we would see even better games, and a lot more risk taking, and a hell of a lot more inovation.

[Quagmire]

Buy Game.
Pay for Xbox Live/PSN+
Pay for Online Code (if bought Second-Hand)
Then Possibly pay Online Subscription
Then Pay for extra over-priced DLC due to cut content or lacklsuter MP maps/modes

[bozebo]

All they have to run to keep a big game running online (like CoD) is a bunch of servers in a few farms in major regions. The running costs for such servers is probably something like $20000 a month. If the game uses P2P or dedicated servers they have no right to charge for the online as it isn't running game-intensive software on their systems. When they sell many millions of titles, they have plenty of cash to throw away at their matchmaking/high score servers.

Refuse to buy games that do that, easy - they won't make them like that if they don't sell and/or if the subscription portion doesn't take hold.

Vote with your wallet and there won't be any problems.

[frjoethesecond]

Why use a COD Black Ops Picture?

[jdigitalseven]

Online play is so overrated and there will always be lag, will never beat the old arcade experience. $60 is too much for any game. I'd rather pay less for the game and have the option to pay extra for online multi-player. Better playing local anyway instead of with strangers with lag,

[Blaine]

The author of this article is clearly completely unable to put himself in the shoes of the developers/ publishers.

Hey, I GET your point that it's not a crime to purchase games second-hand, and that sometimes you need to save a buck. But do TRY and understand that the people who made that game are getting no money from your purchase. Sure, the first owner gave them that money, but the store and first owner are both making money from re-selling it, and the developer isn't, that's completely wrong.

Jaffe said it best: they don't charge you for the second-hand online-pass to punish you, just to get what they're owed. He said "we don't owe anything to people who buy our games second-hand. We get no money from them..." (paraphrasing, I forget his exact words) and he's absolutely right. If they get no money from that sale, why should they give you the full product?

As for charging for online passes, or subscriptions, across-the-board--first-hand and second-hand--I think that would be counter-productive for them (read above). If they take away the free online pass for people who purchase the game new, then there's no more reason not to buy it second-hand. And subscriptions, well, those are just a completely different story altogether, and they're usually justifiable (either in continued support, such as in MMOs; or server maintenance, etc. It's only right to pay for these things.)

Gamers need to stop wanting everything for free and start realizing devs aren't (all) just greedy a*holes--some of them do need to get paid for the hard work they put in!

[GhettoBlasStarr]

I don't understand why people keep believing this " The game developers don't get money" BULLSH*T.
Because the used product was once new. So if anything the person who bought it 1st is the one who loses money, because he sells it later at a cheaper price. He doesn't get the difference back. The developers get there money off top. When you see it in the store used, remember someone already paid full price.

[Blaine]

I quote, from my own comment, and you can see it hasn't been edited: "Sure, the first owner gave them that money, but the store and first owner are both making money from re-selling it, and the developer isn't, that's completely wrong."

Like I clearly said, the developer gets NO MONEY from subsequent sales of the same game.

Look at it this way: 2 people want to play a new game. The first buys it day-1, new, and the developer gets their money. Then he sells it back to the store, and person #2 buys it used--the developer gets no money from this sale. In this extremely simple scenario, 2 people would (*s*hould) have equaled 2 sales for the developer, but it hasn't. The dev got 1 sale, the store 2; both players got the game.

"Devs don't get money bullshit"? No.

[zerocool3397]

I wrote the article and even though I am opening myself up for abuse this has to be said.

When you buy something you own it. If you buy it new or used it don't matter. I agree in part with Blaine that developers should get more money, thing is, should it be from the gamers who have bought second hand? we haven't done anything wrong. In short, we have just picked up a bargain. This is why I mentioned constructive solutions that could be implemented. Charging the companies for selling on the games. Implementing licences for second hand goods that way the devs don't lose out. At the end of the day charging the end user more money for a product they have bought fairly is wrong.

Also Blaine, I studied games development at uni. I know all about it more than most people. I also studied business and the ethic is all wrong. Imagine every company charging for you a subscription for every game you get just so you can use MP. That's £40 xbox live then £25 to one company, another £25 to another... etc. that sums up to a lot of money before you have even bought your games. Also this is not segregated to second hand games... this is to all new and used products. The online pass was to deter people from buying second hand games. This would strip the online pass and add it across the board! Is that really fair? I think not! I want them to make money but when we are already paying £35-50 for a product I don't want to be paying more. In reality, neither would you.

[ian72]

If developers make good enough games, then gamers won't trade in their game, thus making us all have to buy new. I know you always get people trading in games, but if the game is great then not as many will trade the game in, and if you can't find a second hand copy then you'll have to buy new.
I noticed this with COD4 a few years ago, no-one was trading it in. It was harder to find that game used than any other game. It was because it was good and everyone kept it.