Rumor: Mortal Kombat Reboot Locking Multiplayer Behind Online Pass

[Shy_Guy]

But you didn't buy the game, and even though rental copies cost much more than retail copies, neither you nor anyone else who rented the game have the right to enjoy the online features. I mean that makes sense, right? T_T

No, and since I rent games to try them and decide if I want to buy, this kills my incentive to buy the games even more. No Trying = No Buying. Not to mention just the whole idea of paying extra for used games alone making me not want to buy it. I assure you I'm not the only one with this sentiment.

You talk about people who rent not having the "right" to enjoy the online features. Are you kidding me? Next, when publishers decide to charge $10 extra for everyone including people who buy new are you going to argue that we have no right to that content still? Don't kid yourself. You give money-greedy publishers a thumbs up on this and they'll try and shove their collective fist up our asses even deeper next time.

We're already paying $10 a month in the case of Xbox 360 owners to play online, paying $15 for a map-pack in CoD, and now $10 if you buy a game used... On top of the price of games rising $10 from the last generation of consoles. Enough already.

I'd be perfectly fine with getting something extra for buying new, such as what Epic did with GoW2; that was a great extra for people and still available for $10 for those who did buy used. Extras are the only reasonable way to go, not to lock out content.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

But you didn't buy the game, and even though rental copies cost much more than retail copies, neither you nor anyone else who rented the game have the right to enjoy the online features. I mean that makes sense, right? T_T

No, and since I rent games to try them and decide if I want to buy, this kills my incentive to buy the games even more. No Trying = No Buying. Not to mention just the whole idea of paying extra for used games alone making me not want to buy it. I assure you I'm not the only one with this sentiment.

You talk about people who rent not having the "right" to enjoy the online features. Are you kidding me? Next, when publishers decide to charge $10 extra for everyone including people who buy new are you going to argue that we have no right to that content still? Don't kid yourself. You give money-greedy publishers a thumbs up on this and they'll try and shove their collective fist up our asses even deeper next time.

We're already paying $10 a month in the case of Xbox 360 owners to play online, paying $15 for a map-pack in CoD, and now $10 if you buy a game used... On top of the price of games rising $10 from the last generation of consoles. Enough already.

I'd be perfectly fine with getting something extra for buying new, such as what Epic did with GoW2; that was a great extra for people and still available for $10 for those who did buy used. Extras are the only reasonable way to go, not to lock out content.

I completely agree. Just so you know, the last post was sarcasm (ish, I was pointing out how silly it is for them to be punishing you as a renter) but yes, I'm on your side here.

 

[Treeinthewoods]

Actually, this means retailer's will probably start cutting used games to $45 instead of $55 in the states so they can still end up five dollars under the price of new (the retailer will still make more profit doing that instead of selling new).

This tactic allows developers to take money from the retailers pocket through the gamer who will still pay the same price for the used game as before. If the retailer cuts a game to $55 buying it is pointless since new will cost less, if they cut it to $50 people will still prefer new since the price is identical. In every scenario it is the retailer who takes the hit and the developer who comes out ahead.

Silly gamers, whining over nothing. If you can still get a game for the used price but now a portion of the money goes to the creator isn't that a good thing?

 

[Shy_Guy]

I completely agree. Just so you know, the last post was sarcasm (ish, I was pointing out how silly it is for them to be punishing you as a renter) but yes, I'm on your side here.

Well, now I feel like a dummy! :l

Actually, this means retailer's will probably start cutting used games to $45 instead of $55 in the states so they can still end up five dollars under the price of new (the retailer will still make more profit doing that instead of selling new).

This tactic allows developers to take money from the retailers pocket through the gamer who will still pay the same price for the used game as before. If the retailer cuts a game to $55 buying it is pointless since new will cost less, if they cut it to $50 people will still prefer new since the price is identical. In every scenario it is the retailer who takes the hit and the developer who comes out ahead.

Silly gamers, whining over nothing. If you can still get a game for the used price but now a portion of the money goes to the creator isn't that a good thing?

Did you not read my post? This kills rentals. And I've actually yet to see used games go down in price anywhere at all.

I like to rent games I'm not sure about + I like to play online = This Plan Sucks.

 

[Fawcks]

'Entitlement much?' are you serious? Good god, since when did people bend over like this and take all this gratefully! If you buy the damn game then it should include access to ALL content on that disc. This is just ridiculous!

Look.

The developer is the one providing the Online service.

If you buy the game used, you're not buying from the developer. They get NO MONEY from that.

Why should they provide you with a service you did not pay for?

 

[Amethyst Wind]

The problem I have with schemes like this, is that the retailer is under no obligation to knock a full $10 off the price for a used copy of the game. They knock any less than that off and you're forced to buy new to get the best deal. That's not right. This concept is to help the developers balance their books against used sales, the approach taken should not be this draconian.

I don't really like the sales part of video games right now because everybody is trying to undercut each other. I like video games and want to help the developers, but they really are fighting the symptoms and not the cause here.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

This is screwed up. I'm all for companies using day-1 DLC like Shale in DA:O to help get people to buy their game new, but keeping you out of online multiplayer because you bought used is going to far for me.

Everyone always talks about the fact that used games don't give any part of the profits to the developers. I'm fine with this because the copy was already bought new. It's just changing hands now with some money transaction between the people who are handling it. Having developers get money from used games is like having them get money from games given as gifts. Essentially they are getting twice the amount of money for one copy of the game.

Making people pay for extra content when they buy used (as opposed to getting it for free if they buy new) is fine by me. But locking out parts of the game like that just because you weren't the first one to use that copy is crossing the line for me. I wasn't considering getting Mortal Kombat, but I was interested in F.E.A.R. 3 and Batman Arkham City. Now I doubt I'll be getting those.

 

[VanityGirl]

Well if you were going to buy it when it came out, then you wouldn't have to pay the $10 to play online. I'm buying it new the day of, so this doesn't effect me.

Why are people so upset about this? I prefer to buy games new when I can so I make sure I get a good disk.


Why I do think they should do though, is after a few months or a year as gone by, stop making people enter codes in. Unless you have a CoD game, many games will slack up online traffic after a year. Let the people play for free so you can ensure people like your game and may buy from you in the future.