Rumor: Mortal Kombat Reboot Locking Multiplayer Behind Online Pass

[HorrendusOne]

Developpers want to make money on the games they sell. Gamestop's used games give the developpers NO money. So this is a way to make their money back.

Makes perfect sense, really.

Developers already made money on that copy. It's not their copy anymore. It was the copy of a person who bought the game and then that person sold the game to Gamestop. And now that copy belongs to Gamestop. Developers have no right to make any money out of it. There's an actual law against such behavior in my country that prevents bad greedy business deals and transactions and it protects the consumers. Consumers are the ones who should be protected, not the companies.

What is wrong with you people? You are siding with corporations! Do you realize that by doing this you give up your rights? Rights you had as consumers not 10 years ago! Little by little you're giving them a free pass to fuck you anyway they want too.

This is truth. Those of you who are saying O well the Dev's should get more money! Well too bad you don't understand how the system works because you never bothered to do your homework.

In general this is a bad thing since game are already slightly overpriced in general. EA does Nothing but spread BAD Influence! Video games have been losing quality for years just to try to make more money off them. (hench make them cheaper for greater profit margin)

 

[SamElliot'sMustache]

Developpers want to make money on the games they sell. Gamestop's used games give the developpers NO money. So this is a way to make their money back.

Makes perfect sense, really.

Developers already made money on that copy. It's not their copy anymore. It was the copy of a person who bought the game and then that person sold the game to Gamestop. And now that copy belongs to Gamestop. Developers have no right to make any money out of it. There's an actual law against such behavior in my country that prevents bad greedy business deals and transactions and it protects the consumers. Consumers are the ones who should be protected, not the companies.

What is wrong with you people? You are siding with corporations! Do you realize that by doing this you give up your rights? Rights you had as consumers not 10 years ago! Little by little you're giving them a free pass to fuck you anyway they want too.

Giving up what again? Games are not a right nor a necessity, its a luxury..
So If you don't like it?.. Don't buy it. Its THAT simple!

While what you say is true, there's a reason that there are consumer protection laws (and America has a section of copyright law that prevents companies from pressing charges or punishing people for the resale of games, movies, and music). EA, and now Warner Bros. I guess, are attempting to subvert those laws to the detriment of people making legal purchases. This is not a good thing, no matter how you try to spin it (and the developers aren't getting money off of this, either, it's all publisher), so it doesn't make any sense to side with the companies. Withholding 'built-in' features of any product just because someone buys it used is mere exploitation.

To put it another way: if you bought a movie used, and tried to play it, only to discover that you can only watch half the movie, and have to cough up additional money in order to watch the rest, would that seem fair to you? Or would it seem like some Hollywood accountant is trying to sucker you for more blow money?

 

[TwoSidesOneCoin]

Well I was going to buy it.

I dont care how much I want the game, I dont care if it is the best game ever made, I dont care if you get 2 free strippers when you buy it. I will NOT buy any game that uses a sigle use code for access to online play. People who buy games legally are being punished for something that isnt our fault and there is no way we can fix it, so.....

FUCK THAT GAME
FUCK ANY OTHER GAME THAT DOES THIS
FUCK MP ACESS CODES
AND FUCK ANY DEVELOPER WHO USES THEM


We dont deserve this.

Entitlement much?

Developpers want to make money on the games they sell. Gamestop's used games give the developpers NO money. So this is a way to make their money back.

Makes perfect sense, really.

And they didn't sell it, someone else did.

Someone beat me to it, but whatever

Ok, I know that the developers want to make money for the games they sell. Be a losing business if they didn't make that money. (agreed point here)

Gamestop selling used games gives the devs no money at all. Of course it doesn't, Its a used game, which brings me to my next point and my disagreement.)

The game was already bought BRAND MOTHERFUCKING SPANKING NEW once!!!!!
I'm my view, they've already made their money for that one copy of the game. The person who bought it has played it and decided it was time to sell it for whatever reasons, and sells it to Gamestop.

Gamestop sells it cheaper and keeps all net profit from that used game sale.

The only negative way it affects the developer, is that the person who decides to buy the game, will have a choice of buying new or used.

The customer says fuck it, and buys it used, therefore saving $10 or so, and (this is how it hurts the devs) preventing a brand new copy of the game being sold.

So the developer decides to charge $10 so that used copy can play online. So I guess they figure that if they can make at least $10 from each used copy, they'll come out ahead....after six people buy used copies and decide they want online mode.

Ugh, rant over, this ladies and gentlemen is MY opinion. Agree or disagree, its all a matter of opinion.

 

[Professor James]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Online Pass systems are a good thing. They mean that developers effectively make money from second hand sales, rather than everything going to the retailer. They deserve something for their hard work.

I agree in principle, but it shouldn't be such a major part of the game. It should be, say, an alternate game mode for the Online play at most, not the ENTIRE online play.

I agree with Roku, I know project 10 dollar gives devs extra money but locking out an whole online system is a bit too far. How about a character or a stage but not a good chunk of the game.

 

[tehroc]

Now you tell me how much of that 10 dollars went towards the developers and not maintaining a shitty DRM system.**

** Note very rhetorical request that kind of data is hard to prove either way. I just don't believe that stuff is really out to "protect the developers".

Right, people seem to forget that developers were already paid in the form of salary and receive little when it comes to royalties overall. Publishers receive most of that profit gained through online passes. The games industry isn't much different then the music industry anymore, the creativity makes nothing while the suits make most of the winning.

I think it's best handled like Bad Company 2, more maps for new game purchasers.

 

[DEAD34345]

Aaaand, now I'm not buying Arkham city, which i was thinking about buying new, since the first was so great. Congratulations Warner Brothers.

 

[SoulChaserJ]

Isn't Arkham City single player only? I could have sworn I heard there was no online component other than leaderboards. If that's the case then what's to lock behind online pass? I feel this speculation has flaws.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

Someone beat me to it, but whatever

Ok, I know that the developers want to make money for the games they sell. Be a losing business if they didn't make that money. (agreed point here)

Gamestop selling used games gives the devs no money at all. Of course it doesn't, Its a used game, which brings me to my next point and my disagreement.)

The game was already bought BRAND MOTHERFUCKING SPANKING NEW once!!!!!
I'm my view, they've already made their money for that one copy of the game. The person who bought it has played it and decided it was time to sell it for whatever reasons, and sells it to Gamestop.

Gamestop sells it cheaper and keeps all net profit from that used game sale.

The only negative way it affects the developer, is that the person who decides to buy the game, will have a choice of buying new or used.

The customer says fuck it, and buys it used, therefore saving $10 or so, and (this is how it hurts the devs) preventing a brand new copy of the game being sold.

So the developer decides to charge $10 so that used copy can play online. So I guess they figure that if they can make at least $10 from each used copy, they'll come out ahead....after six people buy used copies and decide they want online mode.

Ugh, rant over, this ladies and gentlemen is MY opinion. Agree or disagree, its all a matter of opinion.

I remember having a debate and making a thread comparing video game rentals to piracy, because the devloper doesn't see a penny from the transaction.

Now the simlarity I'm going to pair the two with (piracy and used game sales, or better yet rentals and used game sales, because people on here don't like the "P" word) is that some people just don't think certain games are worth the full price of admission, and it's their choice to make as consumers.

 

[Tohuvabohu]

Doesn't this already happen?

I believe UFC 2010 does that. It requires an online activation pass, like a serial key or something. It came with the game when you buy it brand new so you don't have to pay anything extra to play online, if you bought it new.

But if you used the online pass and decided to resell the game, the person who buys it used will be the one that has to buy himself an online pass.

 

[William Dickbringer]

Hurray, an excuse not to buy the next Mortal Kombat game! I never liked them anywa- what's this? Batman: Arkham [I'm assuming this is meant to be 'city' here?]?

Aww shit, I wanted to buy that one. Damn you principles, why must you make everything complicated?! Ahh well, more money for me I guess. I'll just give it to Pringles and Monster instead while playing other games.

from what I read you get a free one if you buy a new copy and have to pay the $10 for the extra content if you buy used that way companies still make some money from the used game sales and I see nothing wrong with it

 

[joes]

This is why this sucks: after a game has come out and depreciated in value, the publisher is trying to pass the loss in revenue to the consumer. This only happens with digital media because it is so easy to charge someone for use. This would never happen in any other medium. You want to buy a used chair at salvation army? Ok, but you also have to pay IKEA a fee for that fourth leg, buddy.

 

[Someone Depressing]

A return of the whole "Project $10."
I can see how this will work, and $10 is a decent price.

 

[Scabadus]

Hurray, an excuse not to buy the next Mortal Kombat game! I never liked them anywa- what's this? Batman: Arkham [I'm assuming this is meant to be 'city' here?]?

Aww shit, I wanted to buy that one. Damn you principles, why must you make everything complicated?! Ahh well, more money for me I guess. I'll just give it to Pringles and Monster instead while playing other games.

from what I read you get a free one if you buy a new copy and have to pay the $10 for the extra content if you buy used that way companies still make some money from the used game sales and I see nothing wrong with it

I don't see these $10 activations as the most evil thing in the world, but simply put I don't want to pay them. I don't want to play politics and I don't really care about EA's or whoever-publishes-Mortal-Kombat's profit margins: what I see is me having to pay more for used games, which I buy to get cheaply at the cost of disk quality and freebies in the box.

There's also the fact that this $10 reminds me that I don't actually own the game; I only purchase the right to play it. If I buy anything else from anyone else it's a deal between us, even other digital media like a film or music CD I can buy off the other person directly. But games, nope, not games. I disagree with that, and there's really only one way I as a single consumer can show that to the big companies: any letters or emails will get lost in the system; but I can quite simply not buy their product, giving my money to a company whos practises I do agree with.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Well I was going to buy it.

I dont care how much I want the game, I dont care if it is the best game ever made, I dont care if you get 2 free strippers when you buy it. I will NOT buy any game that uses a sigle use code for access to online play. People who buy games legally are being punished for something that isnt our fault and there is no way we can fix it, so.....

FUCK THAT GAME
FUCK ANY OTHER GAME THAT DOES THIS
FUCK MP ACESS CODES
AND FUCK ANY DEVELOPER WHO USES THEM


We dont deserve this.

Yeah, why would the developer want and deserve to see any money from used game sales, right? Blame Gamestop, buy it from somewhere else.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

I much prefer EA's online pass mixed with Day One DLC policy to JUST an online pass.

I mean, I'm not getting MK because it's a shitty series, but Batman doesn't worry me, as it's Square, who hasn't tried shit like this yet.

 

[Jacksaw Jack]

If games stop being rushed incomplete projects barely 4 - 6 hours long and were worth keeping maybe people would be more willing to buy and not resell. This also affects people who rent games btw, be it from Rental stores or services like Gamefly (which has saved me a lot of money on failures that looked interesting).

The publishers are just being greedy bastards,corporate business as usual, so buck up me Hardies.

 

[escapador]

I'm not sure if I understand. I have to pay the usual 60? for the game plus 10? to unlock multiplayer? Or is the 10? unlock just for the people who buy it second hand? Does the 60? include multiplayer?

 

[Covarr]

If my buddy sells me a used game for $40, he can no longer play it online, as he lost the online portion in the transaction along with the rest of the game. However, if I need to buy an online pass, then I didn't receive the online portion. Effectively, part of the game simply disappeared in the process of a used game sale. Or, more accurately, the publisher basically stole it back to resell it.

As I see it, it's highly dishonest and greedy to demand extra money if the game's already been paid for. They have already received their money for a single copy of the game; it's not like a used sale creates a second copy of the product. They have no right to demand payment for something that has already been paid for.

Imagine, as an example, if every television were uniquely identified in a way that every set top device could recognize. Imagine further that you have a DVD player and a movie. You decide to resell the movie because it was Disaster Movie, you regret purchasing it in the first place, and are hoping to cut your losses. Should the person who buys it after you be barred from watching the special features since he didn't buy new? Does the fact that the studio isn't seeing ADDITIONAL profits from an ALREADY-SOLD unit mean that he is not entitled to everything that normally comes with it?

What about physical products? If someone resells a bookcase, does Ikea have the right to take the shelves back and demand payment so that the customer can have what they already purchased? Ignoring the fact that such a scheme would obviously be unfeasible to implement and impossible to enforce, it would also be a slap in the face of consumers' rights, and in most places considered illegal.

If a person sells a game and the buyer doesn't receive all of it because it's used, the publisher or manufacturer is STEALING. THIS IS THEFT, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. The entire game has already been paid for, and there are no additional copies in circulation as a result of this sale, so the publisher has no right to demand extra revenue from it.

P.S. Thanks

 

[robert022614]

I dont like it if for anything for the fact me and my friend like to go over to each others houses and play our games together and having to pay $10.00 to do that is sort of ridiculous. They are limiting playability and I will not buy this game or any like it because I do not like where this trend is going.

 

[Reaperman64]

thats the thing though ten dollars, is alot less than ten pounds, and 800 points cost ten pounds in Great britain