Jimquisition: Online Passes Are Bad For Everybody

[steelguy17]

This entire argument just seemed a little weak to me. I don't have a strong feeling towards having or not having online passes. I know its an opinion based show, but I'd like a little bit more support to one's opinion than what seems to be whining more about time, and help the financially poor gamer.

I am a poor gamer myself. I find steam deals a godsend, but I pick and choose my spots where I buy my games and not rely on returning the game for store credit so I can buy new games. If i know i'm gonna love a game, and play it enough to get value for my full purchase I'll do it, if its questionable, I'll either rent or just not purchase it simple as that.

I want figures not just conjecture from this argument. It did very little to sway me and I think Jim can do better than this.

 

[MeTheMe]

Once again, this shows us the need to vote with our wallets. If a game with a new pass was released that was annoying and intrusive, and no one bought it because of that, don't you think they'd rethink what they'd just done? Same for intrusive DRM. Yeah, I may not get to play the game I want to for a while, but I try to send a message.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

First point - Get a job, hippies! Games are not too expensive, if you're a smart consumer. This is true of all goods and services. I'm not going to spend sixty bucks on a 5 hour campaign because I do my research before I even enter the store. Even then when I do splurge on a full priced new release title, I do so with the help of Amazon / KMart / Best Buy incentive programs. The last full priced title I bought was Deus Ex 3 at KMart with the promise of $20 off the next game, and the next, and the next, and the next. And that game lasted me a solid month of regular playing with a reasonable expectation of coming back to it again. I can't think of any other form of entertainment with that level of value. The fact that Skyrim will be the same price, and I paid less than that to play Oblivion Game of the Year Edition (brand new copy, about two years after release) is mind boggling. If I can afford to sustain this hobby with a $9000 college loan and working three days a week for minimum wage, almost anybody can.

Also, this issue does not affect everybody. I don't buy used games. Ever. In my life I've probably only sold about two games, and I sure as hell didn't waste them by getting ripped off at a gamestop. Second, I barely play online at all. If a game is online centric in nature, my level of consumer interest goes way down, especially when considering the hassles and hidden fees already involved. Mildly interested in Dead Space 1, no interest in Dead Space 2. It just shows me they weren't crafting an experience with me in mind. I will concede on two points. It is utter bullshit to waste valuable customers' time. The potential technical hitches like the Dirt 3 situation are already evidence enough to end this bullcrap.

However, I believe there is a solution to this "problem" if gamestop and publishers work together. It's simple. When discussing Battlefield 3 with a coworker, I told him it would be on two discs on 360. He immediately assumed they would be separated by multiplayer and single player. And he only wanted the multiplayer disc because clearly they are two separate products. Sell the multi by itself at a discount (not even a large discount) and you will make a fucking killing. Mark my words, EA/Activision/THQ. This is the new business model. You won't have to worry about used games sucking up your money because you'll double your chances of getting a sale. Or maybe bundle them up at retail at first and let gamestop sell them piecemeal. It would work and you immediately get a bite at the apple, no matter what. And the used price of the multi disc would remain high because that's the one everybody will still be playing years later. "Well, I could pay $35 for this used copy or pay $40 for a brand new one." And this would have to be said aloud by someone who entered a gaming retailer that even offered used games, a service most retailers don't even bother with.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Yeah! Fuck you too Imhotep! You're supposed to build pyramids, not summon an army of the dead!

 

[Stall]

The problem with believing that used games are a good way for gamers to test new IPs is that publishers require the sales of the new IP to judge if a sequel is worth it. If everyone buys a new IP used, then it simply isn't going to get a sequel because the publisher doesn't consider it worthwhile since the first game just didn't sell. If someone made a great new IP, but most people bought it used because they are afraid of that fact, then there wouldn't be a chance to BUY a sequel because a sequel wouldn't happen.

EDIT: Also, why do people expect companies to trust them? Do you know the first rule of fucking business? It's that you NEVER trust your customer. When you give a customer trust, even just a little bit, then they will find ways to exploit that trust and fuck you over because of it. Not trusting your customer is good business. It isn't being a dick or being rude. Stop being entitled and expect publishers to trust you, because it isn't going to happen.

I hate the entitlement of so many gamers nowadays.

 

[Raika]

Jim Sterling is the greatest man who ever lived, and an inspiration to us all. I kind of want him to impregnate me.


In all seriousness, Jim voices his opinions very well, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. I've declined to purchase games in the past or even rent them due to this "online pass" system to which I strongly object, and I'd like to point out to the "Call of Duty is ruining gaming" hordes that nobody is making you buy their DLC. I know that kind of came out of nowhere, but it's something to think about. People love to ***** about Activision, but they aren't doing this shit.

 

[Dastardly]

Online Passes Are Bad For Everybody

In the first part of a series of Jimquisitions on used games and their place in the industry, Sterling tackles the most recent tactic used by publishers in the fight against traded products -- online passes -- and examines why they're bad for everybody. Be you a publisher, a used gamer, or a NEW one, online passes are bad news, and Jim Sterling will force the truth down your little lie gullet.

Watch Video

I'm shocked you didn't include the biggest reason (in my estimation) that online passes are bad for new purchasers: If you put another barrier in the way, you'll have fewer people online to play with.

Your used customers may not be paying you money directly, but they are providing extra heads for online play. They pad your servers, or at least ensure that your paying customers aren't sitting there for 20 minutes waiting for enough people to get a game going. That ensures more repeat business from these happy customers.

If you're going to use some kind of pass system like this (and I mean if you absolutely must), I wouldn't choose multiplayer as the sort of content you would be gating. Instead, offer things more akin to those pre-order bonuses. Or better still, why not offer some of the early DLC at a discounted price (or free) to folks with the "new game" code?

 

[Paragon Fury]

Online passes are good for games.

They fight used sales (and often times the cost of the Online Pass + Used Game is still almost $10-$20 cheaper than the new game) and don't actually do any harm to new customers. Rental customers are such a small part of the base and by their very nature don't plan on having the game very long so the multiplayer is likely not a terribly important part of their experience.

However, the only change I would make to the idea is that instead of totally locking people out of the multiplayer, you instead do what games Homefront and Space Marine do;

Let people play the multiplayer up to a certain level/point and then either don't let them advance anymore or let them use MM.

This way renters could still get a taste of the MP for their short time, and it gives Used Buyers/Borrowers the option to try out the MP before deciding if they want to buy the Online Pass.

 

[Sylocat]

You know what hurts the game industry even more than online passes? Cheap people who wait a month after a game comes out just to get a used copy of a game, thus giving all their money to Gamestop, and not the creators or publishers of the game.

"Oh no, I can't play this shitty multiplayer without putting in a code. Oh woe is me."

Yes, because everyone can easily afford to pay for every game they want new before the price drop or before used ones start appearing.

Whoops, sorry, I didn't mean yes. I meant no, no way, and if you can then you are very much in the minority and you shouldn't be blaming others for having less money than you.

Given how little difference there is between GameStop's new and used prices, I'd hazard a guess that if you can afford the used price, and have a machine that can play the game (and the free time to do so), you can afford the new price.

 

[wooty]

The only way round this that I could see working for me is this:-

Pay full price for a new online focused/enabled game that I want in order to play it (MW3, BF3, FIFA ect)
Buy pre-owned for games of the more the single player oriented (Final Fantasy, Ratchet and clank, Yakuza ect)

Could work until, and heres the silly part, they get wise to this and start charging people £10 to enter their own house in order to play their "dirty copy"

 

[Flames66]

You know what hurts the game industry even more than online passes? Cheap people who wait a month after a game comes out just to get a used copy of a game, thus giving all their money to Gamestop, and not the creators or publishers of the game.

"Oh no, I can't play this shitty multiplayer without putting in a code. Oh woe is me."

If games were reasonably priced, I would buy them from the developer. I will pay £10 for a game, £20 absolute maximum if I am really interested. £40 is twice my absolute maximum, so I will wait a bit and buy it used.

(Edited for grammar)

 

[PunkRex]

Here in Enland we userly pay £45-£60 for a brand spanking new game... which is about $60-$70 dollars... bad timez... I havnt bout a new AAA game in about a year, I mainly only play XBox live arcade now... to be honest, its been really fun... except for Clash of Heros, YOU JUST GOT 5 LINKS IN A ROW RANDOMLY?! BOLLOX!!!

 

[TheDooD]

I just don't understand why people are so against used games. The pump money into the industry and courts have upheld time and time again that we have the right to sell our licensed product to others. The publishers not seeing any money dosen't hold up either, because EVERY used game anywhere ever, was once a new game that was purchased.

They're money grubbing bastards that can careless about a happy fan base compared to lining their pockets with more money they'll never spend because they're afraid of taking risks. The funny thing is that Gamestop and other places that sell used games uses the money from said games to buy newer games, stock all those nice things gamers want and publishers want sold as well. They love gamestop when they're stocking their NEW stuff but wants them to burn in napalm the moment something used of theirs is for sell.

 

[hitheremynameisbob]

The publishers not seeing any money dosen't hold up either, because EVERY used game anywhere ever, was once a new game that was purchased.

That's just wrong. The point people make when they say that is that the publisher could have sold TWO games, not just one, because two different people bought it. If you couldn't sell used games, some of the people who bought it used WOULD buy it new. Meanwhile, that person who first bought the game which was later sold as used is fairly likely to still buy it - hence two new sales instead of just the one.

Jim is right on the money, though - it's entirely possible that used games are actually making developers money, but it's not because someone already bought the game once - that's a sale they probably would have had anyway. Instead, they make money through more indirect means like bringing people into the franchise so that they'll buy a SEQUEL new. However, unless someone actually does the research on that it's hard to say that with any measure of certainty, which makes Jim's argument a bit flimsy. The point he's trying to make is "it's good for both developer and consumer," but half of that is relying on an assumption that these means through which developers make money off used games are making them more than they're losing. It's undeniable that consumers experience some great benefits by having the option to buy used, but unless you can show conclusively that the developers also stand to gain, it's hard to say that they should just accept it.

 

[LazyAza]

Jim gets sent crazy game promotion stuff all the time. The previous one was a chainsword from Warhammer 40k Space Marine (to scale) from THQ. The one he used in this is ChaosEater, War's sword from Darksiders though its a little small given war is about 8-10foot tall. Another game published by THQ, I guess they like sending him crazy crap? lol

Oh and back on topic, fuck EA and game codes n all that.

 

[hitheremynameisbob]

They're money grubbing bastards that can careless about a happy fan base compared to lining their pockets with more money they'll never spend because they're afraid of taking risks. The funny thing is that Gamestop and other places that sell used games uses the money from said games to buy newer games, stock all those nice things gamers want and publishers want sold as well. They love gamestop when they're stocking their NEW stuff but wants them to burn in napalm the moment something used of theirs is for sell.

Jeez there's a lot of straw-manning going on here. The argument developers make is not that they'd be better off without Gamestop. They don't say that Gamestop does nothing for them. The argument developers make is that they'd make MORE money if Gamestop wouldn't sell used games. Whether that's right or wrong is the question, but don't act like they never acknowledge that Gamestop makes them money - they do.

 

[Sylocat]

You know what publishers could do about the used games market? Here's what:

They could set up a part of their website specifically devoted to trade-ins. Players could sell used copies of the game to one another, using the publisher themselves as the middle-men, and the publisher would get some money out of the deal.

The advantage to doing this over GameStop would be that the publishers wouldn't have to take nearly as big of a cut of each transaction in order to stay in business, so the seller gets more, the buyer pays less, and everyone goes home with more money in their pocket.

As an added bonus, you could also do this with serial numbers. Any used copy directly processed through the publisher's website would have the serial number automatically "reset" with no extra steps necessary... and any used copy sold through a third-party like GameStop would have to be called-in and processed (requiring proof of purchase, &c.). Even if you didn't charge any extra money for the serial number thing, the sheer CONVENIENCE of it would be a drawing point.

 

[alinos]

I'm on PC online passes aren't bad for me because we don't get trade in Period.

And while i can see why people need to live off of trade in's.

I think the used game market needs to be adjusted, i think there should be a 30 day grace period, where from the set release date trade in's can't be sold in retail stores(sure ebay and the like are ways to get around this). But at least in that case all of the money is going to the seller, as opposed to gamestop or the like perpetuating a cycle where they charge 5-10 dollars less than the games price on the shelf next to it.

Some game copies boomerang in and out of the store. In an experiment a friend did at the video game store he worked at he marked 10 or so games to see how often they came back in after that intitial trade some of them came back 10+ times in the first 2 months.

the fact that the trade in system perpetuates buying a game rushing through it and trading it back to add another 10-20 dollars ontop of the trade credit to get the next game and do the same thing. Results in this boomerang effect.

And the thing is even with a 30 day grace period they can still sell them at the same prices they do now. But at least when john goes in 3 days after release he wont be presented with a shelf full of trade in copies and only 1-2 new copies(another tactic the local video game store uses(EB which is the Aussie version of Gamestop).

To me the used games market is essentially piracy(and yes no theft has occured but there is no other industry where you can buy a product for 10% cheaper 3 days later. And no other industry where wear and tear doesn't ruin the product. Unless someone has been feeding games to their dog's they will always work as good as a new copy. Not to mention that unlike buying a second hand car where you can't visibly see any where and tear inside the engine all you have to do is look at the back of the disc to see if it's shot to hell or not.

But hey i mainly game on PC and when i want a title on the console something like Demon souls for instance i want that developer to have money