Saints Row: The Third to require online pass for co-op.

[pope_of_larry]

This seems fair. Game servers aren't free, you know. Don't companies have a right to ensure that someone who hasn't paid them for the game isn't wasting their money? It'd be an outrage if second owners were locked out from a game's content completely, but as it stands we're just talking about the multiplayer here.

The would make sense if the first user was still on the server the slot in the server was paid for by the first buyer then he sold his slot to who got it next (game store or a friend) and they should be able to play the game with the server slot that was paid for when the first person got the game.

 

[-Samurai-]

God, why do people get so upset about this? Who cares? From a business perspective, it makes perfect sense. They don't make money from used sales. They want to have incentive for people to buy it new. You're playing the same game as everyone else and if you want to play online, either buy new or buy the pass. It's not that expensive and they have to make money somehow.

Yeah ok, we get it's good from a business point of view but why is it good from a consumer point of view? How does this add value to me? It's not my concern if they're not making enough money as they'd like and I'll be damned if I'm going to allow them a slice of money they're not entitled to. Maybe if they didn't spend so much money developing crap games that people don't want to keep for more than a few days they wouldn't feel they have to resort to this bullshit.

If you want to use their servers, they're within their right to charge you. I'd love to see you host the type of and number of servers game developers/publishers use and just eat the cost by letting everyone use them for free.

You're not entitled to their services just because you own the game. They are entitled to collect fees from people using their services.

 

[-Samurai-]

This seems fair. Game servers aren't free, you know. Don't companies have a right to ensure that someone who hasn't paid them for the game isn't wasting their money? It'd be an outrage if second owners were locked out from a game's content completely, but as it stands we're just talking about the multiplayer here.

The would make sense if the first user was still on the server the slot in the server was paid for by the first buyer then he sold his slot to who got it next (game store or a friend) and they should be able to play the game with the server slot that was paid for when the first person got the game.

Except you're not paying for a slot. You're paying for access to their servers, and that access is nontransferable.

Online access is not a part of the game anymore, it's a completely separate service. And like the majority of services, you have to pay to access it, and you can't just give your right to use the service to someone else.

 

[-Samurai-]

God, why do people get so upset about this? Who cares? From a business perspective, it makes perfect sense. They don't make money from used sales. They want to have incentive for people to buy it new. You're playing the same game as everyone else and if you want to play online, either buy new or buy the pass. It's not that expensive and they have to make money somehow.

Yeah ok, we get it's good from a business point of view but why is it good from a consumer point of view? How does this add value to me? It's not my concern if they're not making enough money as they'd like and I'll be damned if I'm going to allow them a slice of money they're not entitled to. Maybe if they didn't spend so much money developing crap games that people don't want to keep for more than a few days they wouldn't feel they have to resort to this bullshit.

If you want to use their servers, they're within their right to charge you. I'd love to see you host the type of and number of servers game developers/publishers use and just eat the cost by letting everyone use them for free.

You're not entitled to their services just because you own the game. They are entitled to collect fees from people using their services.

Those services were already paid for by the original purchaser. Plus the charge for these online passes is in no way commensurate with the actual level of expenditure required to keep a server running, especially when most console multiplayer is done peer to peer and there's only a need for a master server to coordinate.

And if you're not the original purchaser, you don't have the right to their servers. When you pay for access, you enter into an agreement that says that you're allowed to use their services, and that agreement is nontransferable.

And even if they were to use just a master server, they'd have to buy it, which isn't cheap, install it, configure it, test it, tweak it, and pay for the electricity that runs it. There isn't a single thing about owning and operating a server of that magnitude that isn't expensive. And they run more than one, obviously.

I really don't know why people have a hard time understanding how things work in the adult world. You want a service, so you pay for it. If you don't agree with it, you don't pay for it and you don't get it. It isn't difficult.

 

[Devon Dent]

I amde the same post when Rage was going to need a pass for 1% of it's content.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.306722-Poll-RAGE-puts-it-money-where-its-mouth-is#12344489

That is the whole link to it, here is the snip I wanted to share.

There are many people out there comparing the move as an anti-pirating campaign, but that's not really the only thing to consider here. If you buy the game used the producers of the game make little to no money for the used game purchase. Which means if you buy a used one, when you could have bought a new one the company that made the game gets nothing (or almost nothing I'm not really sure about that but I know they don't get what they would have gotten if someone would have bought a new copy). As far as anti-pirating goes typically a pirater of the game is going to lose out on the multiplayer (That is a 9/10 You can sometimes still access any form of LAN play with a pirated copy of a game Diablo 1 and 2 are proof enough of that).

The other thing you have to take into account is rentals. A blockbuster buys the copys of the game that it puts on the shelf for rent, and then a lot of people rent them, beat them, and then bring them back. So blockbuster buys 1 copy of a game and 1000 people rent it, have their fun with it and then don't ever have to buy the game at retail price. So let's do the math; 1 copy of the game bought by Blockbuster for 59.99, then 1000 people skip out on buying it for that same price (for those of you playing at home that's 59.99 * 1000)a grand total of $59990.00. Now after calling blockbuster customer care and asking how rentals work (Yes i actually am that sad) they pay a nominal and fair fee for the rental contract, but it is not going to equal $59990.00

 

[Hisshiss]

Doesn't EA publish Volitions games? Anything that is affiliated with EA is gonna have that online pass, its why all Bioware games use them now as well.

So to that end the only thing you could really say about Volition is that they shouldn't be working with EA. That being said, Im perfectly good with never buying a bioware game, but volitions connection to EA always hurt me cus I was forced to pay EA to play saints row v.v.

 

[-Samurai-]

So if the online passes are $10 and the game sells new for $60, you're basically saying that 1/6 of the entire budget of the game is spent on maintaining the servers for the multiplayer... It's a total rip off, that's why people are bitching about it and I want nothing to do with any company that pulls this crap.

Then it looks like you won't be gaming much longer, because more and more publishers are going this route. The companies won't mourn the loss of your hobby, and everything will continue as normal.

 

[Arina Love]

i buy games new so online passes don't touch me in a slightest. i just punch in a code and play. Don't agree with what publishers\developers doing? vote with you wallet don't buy games from said publisher/dev. simple as that. They have every right to do whatever they want with their product.

 

[Maheemo]

I don't mind online passes at all because I never buy used games

 

[walrusaurus]

Servers don't create and maintain themselves, no. But the publishers don't have to bother with it. In games with dedicated servers, the gamers host their own servers -- they usually pay for them with donations from server regulars. In the case of matchmaking, there's one central server that handles a tiny amount of data (it literally does nothing but keep track of player stats; things like how many times you've prestiged in a CoD game) and the individual players handle the rest through a peer to peer network. Even then, the bandwidth used by a game is tiny; WoW players cost Blizzard less than a dollar a month a piece, and they're ridiculously hard on the servers. For the average FPS, we're talking kilobytes of data in an average play session, maybe upgraded to megabytes if voice chat is being carried too. That costs next to nothing; the only reason the servers are as expensive as they are is because most groups just rent them from a third party. A lot of older games (with lower system requirements for the server) that still have dedicated servers are hosted on an old linux box in some guys garage, using his home internet connection. The whole "servers are expensive" deal is a lie to get consumers on the publisher's side; gamers, having a history of gullibility in this area, fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Edit: and to emphasisze, the servers for WoW are hosted by Blizzard. The servers for nearly all FPS's (Planetside and Quake Live being the only exceptions I can think of -- and surprise surprise, the former is on a subscription based model just like WoW, while the latter is free to the user, with ads and premium accounts (which get rid of the ads and let you host your own servers) are hosted by the users, who pay for everything.

Player hosted servers are great, but the idea that they can serve as the whole backbone for a modern AAA game is ridiculous. Gamers are a generally a tech savy bunch, but i very much doubt there are enough out there with the resources and know-how to run enough servers to support millions of users; to say nothing of how many of such people who are willing.

I never claimed that hosting game servers was a crippling expense on gaming companies. I realize that its a relatively cheap operation relative to each individual user. Thats irrelevant. They are providing a service, and can reasonably expect to be compensated for their efforts. It's called capitalism.

 

[yookiwooki]

I find step 4) STRAP IT ON rather ironic because it is in fact the customer who will be taking it up the ass.

Let's think about what I'm paying for as an Xbox 360 owner who gets this game and play it online. First, I paid for the used game ($50). Second I paid for my Xbox to play the game ($250). Third, I paid for Xbox Live ($10/month). Fourth I paid for my internet ($20/month). Now they want me to pay for the passcode ($10). That's a $310 investment with $30 in monthly fees. I am paying money to Microsoft, my ISP, Gamestop, and THQ. Why do I have to pay for THQ's servers AND Xbox Live? What is Xbox Live even doing for me in this situation?

 

[WanderingFool]

I pre-ordered, so it doesnt bother me.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

You know what's hilarious about this whole scenario? If retail outlets bought a handful of online passes and stuck them in their used copies and bumped up the price, no-one would be complaining.

The only reasons there's a fucking uproar is because the passes are being sold directly to the consumer instead of to the distributor.

I find step 4) STRAP IT ON rather ironic because it is in fact the customer who will be taking it up the ass.

Let's think about what I'm paying for as an Xbox 360 owner who gets this game and play it online. First, I paid for the used game ($50). Second I paid for my Xbox to play the game ($250). Third, I paid for Xbox Live ($10/month). Fourth I paid for my internet ($20/month). Now they want me to pay for the passcode ($10). That's a $310 investment with $30 in monthly fees. I am paying money to Microsoft, my ISP, Gamestop, and THQ. Why do I have to pay for THQ's servers AND Xbox Live? What is Xbox Live even doing for me in this situation?

Dicking you out of 10 bucks a month from the sound of it...

 

[direkiller]

Oh so I'm not entitled to multiplayer on a game I've bought? Buying it used is a punishable offence, is it?

Well, looks like that's the last I buy from them. But I could have told you they were doing this with some games last year.

Gamers today are self entitled.

Yeah, how dare gamers want the right to a second-hand market? It's not like it has a right to exist....

OH WAIT, IT TOTALLY DOES.

Maybe you should look up "entitled," because the way you're using it, it applies more to the companies who are arguing they should get bonus money for used titles. They're not entitled to that. Sorry.

I don't agree that charging extra for coop on second hand copies is the best idea, but I also don't agree that devs should get no money for their games.

they already have money from when the game was bought new

if i buy the game new and keep it forever
but my buddy buys new sells it back and the next guy keeps it forever the dev still makes the same amount of money

Second hand market is beneficial to them weather they see it or not. You can look to the PC for a place that's devoid of a 2nd hand market but somehow still manages to sell less copys then the consoles that do have a second hand market(even if you take into account pirated copys as a sale its still lower).

Steam remedied that issue. The only reason PC sells less is because of retail. PC games have switched to digital long ago, and now PC is much healthier than console gaming right now.

The second hand market is a symptom of bad business practices, a monopoly, a symptom that causes a cascade effect that will lead to the collapse of the entire market. The only reason used game sales exist is because console gaming is outpacing its market. Its a growing money pit, one that is making even the biggest of the big sweat. Eventually the greed will overtake the companies, leading to a collapse as it falls under its own weight.

Steam doesn't sell anywhere near the copies retail stores do(curtly Digital Distubition makes up about 20-23% of sales steam is roughly 70% of the DD market share)
and the PC for AAA titles dose not sell anywhere near the copies that consoles have(there's a reason you see them designing games for consoles and porting it over to the PC).

I'm not saying PC gaming is going the way of the dodo I'm just saying it was hurt by actively crushing a second hand market. It makes consumers less likely to buy a game as they have no way of getting even part of the money back. also when you sell something to a store you tend to buy another game(possibly new).

 

[InsanityRequiem]

Online passes screw over the people that rent games. I gotta rent, since I do not have the financial means to CONTINUOUSLY BUY GAMES at $60 a pop. If a section of a game is cut off and I must waste money to get access to a rental, then I'll just send the game back. Which means that THQ, with their online pass, has just cost them a sale.

 

[Yopaz]

Oh no, I have to pay the developers money to get access to all their product.

Whatever shall I do.

Woe is me.

*insert more sarcasm here*

Hey, if you want to promote anti-consumer policies, go for it.

How is it anti-consumer exactly?

I will buy the game new. Therefore I get the code, and the devs get my money.

Gamers today are self entitled.

Oh so I'm not entitled to multiplayer on a game I've bought? Buying it used is a punishable offence, is it?

If you pay the full price you get the full game. It's not that complicated.

If you legally purchase the game, no matter what the price agreed upon, you get the full game. It's not that complicated.

And it's legal for the publisher to make online passes. Do you got a point there?

Yes, that people with large amounts of money can pay lawyers to either find or create a loophole that circumvents consumer rights. We should be outraged that they did this and trying to get a law passed that patches the hole, not going "thank you, sir, may I have another?"

Spoiler: this videoclip shows the reaction of the average gamer to the excesses of the industry

Only problem is, very, very few of them are even trying to get into the "fraternity," which in this metaphor is the industry, so sitting there and asking for more does absolutely nothing positive.

Edit: By the way, in case anyone has a lacking movie education and doesn't know what the clip is from, it's from National Lampoon's Animal House, not some creepy porno.

It's not a loophole at all. Please if you want to use the law to support your whining over the fact that they want money to cover server costs please for the love of god learn the law first.

Call it what you want; it goes completely against the spirit of the law, but follows the letter of the law. To me, that is the definition of a loophole. The biggest mistake consumers ever made was accepting the first EULA, because our rights have been on a downward slope ever since. They aren't licensing the games to us, but because they have a piece of paper that claims they are, they can get away with it. Thing is, those don't even fly in the courts of most countries; in the EU, they're explicitly invalid, and even in the US, their legal status is undecided. It's going to take a ruling by the Supreme Court to decide it, and it will probably be a 5-4 decision, but there's a good chance any EULA which actually made it that far would be struck down.

So World of Warcraft is the biggest lawbreaker of all the game industry by this logic? Not only do we have to pay for the game once. We have to register an account, then we have to pay to maintain their</b servers? It costs money to run servers, thus it's not unfair if we have to pay for it.

No, World of Warcraft is and always has been a service, not a product. The purchase price doesn't pay for the disc so much as the initial 15 days or whatever it is of service. After that, you pay $15 a month. Heck, most of the game isn't even on the disc; it's server side, not client side. With these other games, the online part is hosted by the user, using code that is on the disc -- and therefore part of the sale. Comparing WoW's business model to what's going on here is like comparing the fees on Cable or Satellite Radio to a physical movie or CD.

Edit: And yes, you read that right. The "server costs" are entirely footed by the players; the game company has jack squat to do with it. WoW uses a different system, where the servers are entirely hosted by Blizzard, and therefore have to be paid for on an ongoing basis. Even then, they way overcharge for it; each user incurs a cost on the order of pennies every month, but they each pay out $15. No wonder Blizzard is such a successful corporation...

Yeah, the difference is that you pay to use the servers one time, rather than once a month. Just because there's no content on the servers they cost money to maintain. We pay once, they pay until they decide the servers are dead and not worth keeping up anymore. So they are selling both a game and a service. The game can be played without the service so what are you complaining about?

Edit: even when you're hosting a server you connect through a network that connects you to those you are playing with. It might not be a massive cost for each player, but there is a cost involved. Let me add that you should learn how technology work while you're digging into the laws.

Read my post above this one, bro. You're the one who is showing ignorance here, not me. I've been gaming online since 2002, and have been an active member of multiple server communities. I know how this crap works.

Edit: also, if you're not getting it, the "network" you connect to when the servers are user hosted (and almost all of them are; the few that aren't are just kind of seed servers that are only left up until the community takes off on its own, and matchmaking games don't even go that far) is called "the internet," and you pay your ISP for access to it, not the game company, who has absolutely nothing to do with it. The only cost they have is the stats server, which is such a negligible cost that they may as well be complaining that each new player isn't directly contributing to the cost of heating their offices (in fact, more so, because the server costs way, way less), and tacking a fee on for the purpose.

Wow, you've been playing online since 2002? Then you must clearly know everything about everything. Now if you didn't get it, I was now using sarcasm.

Back in high school we used to play CS over LAN, but we had to dodge Steam because the school network blocked it. What we did was that we cracked the game so it could start without Steam and then we could play LAN. However when I got home and wanted to play online I could not connect to any servers without Steam, and no-one not on the same network could connect to my servers. Why is that? Because internet connection alone is not enough. You can't google your way into a server. Matchmaking works in a way to track down fitting servers based on your demands for you. You connect through a network and while the cost might be minimal, there is a small cost. It's like saying you should not be punished for shoplifting something cheap. The store is losing almost nothing on you doing it.

The internet alone /is/ enough when dedicated servers are involved. The client connects to the server through the internet. Your cracked version of counterstrike was set up to only go through a local network (LAN: Local Area Network), and therefore couldn't connect to any internet based servers. Incidentally, Steam is only involved in Counterstrike as far as launching the game; some of the servers are connected to VAC, valve's anti-cheat service, but that connection is from the game server to the VAC server; the costs involved there, which are even lower than those involved with a game server, aren't directly related to anything done by the users -- and besides, Valve is the only game company that uses their own anti-cheat service. The rest of them either pay to use Punkbuster or pay valve to use VAC in their games -- which is how Valve pays for it. The bill is not footed by the users. Anyway, there are two checks you would have to get through to play a cracked copy of Counterstrike online. The first is getting around the connection to Steam, which you did. The second is connecting to a server which is not VAC secured, which do, in fact, exist. It's not the network's fault if you didn't know enough to do the second part. If you couldn't see the servers at all, it's because whoever cracked it didn't do a very good job, and they somehow disabled internet connections -- which would be silly, because Counterstrike has built in LAN support, so it's not like they would have needed to hack it in and replace the internet functionality with it.

As for matchmaking: it's a peer to peer network. It basically works like bit torrent. This is less like arguing that shoplifting costs Gamestop very little per person, and more like refusing to do business with a store that charges you a fee for enjoying the air conditioning on top of whatever it is you actually buy -- and that's assuming there's any costs involved for the company. The reality is that it's more like a store charging you for the air conditioning you have in your own house, or in the cases of dedicated servers that you play on but don't personally own, it's like going on a beer run for a party at a friend's place, and having them tack on a fee for using your friend's refrigerator to store the beer, even though they have nothing to do with that particular fridge.

And yeah, I've been playing online since 2002. That in itself isn't enough to show that I know what I'm doing, but the fact stated in the same sentence which claims says I've been an active member of multiple server communities (read: the people who use and, for a small percentage of them, pay for the servers) should show that I have some inkling of where the costs go. The fact that you apparently didn't understand what I meant by that shows that it's not me who is lacking information here.

Now if we remove all of this post's bragging about your obviously superior skills to anyone else in the whole wide world I can see you mentioned small costs. Not because of the users. Costs that would be there whatever you do to avoid cheating. On what grounds do you state that there are nothing like that with Saints Row The Third? However, you know what. Don't answer that. Boycott the game and hate THQ all you want for wanting to earn money. In the meantime I will be happy playing Saints Row The Third both offline and online and not caring about you or anyone else who hates it for using online passes.

 

[razor343]

Doesn't affect me in the slighest. I'm perfectly happy to give Volition my money and have pre-ordered my copy of the game yesterday. Not gonna get involved with the Used Game Debate.

 

[Mikeyfell]

snip

I was doing so for laughs. Nothing more. The thing is, I've done the same sorta thing. I fully apologize if you were in any way take aback.

Secondly, I was referring to your part about game developers deserving a cut of second hand sales. Taken on it's own, that goes against the FSD. But if you were referring to them getting money though second hand sales through Online passes, yes. That's in accordance with the FSD. So perhaps we had a miss-communication. In which case, I apologize again.[/quote]

Unless you mean that ALL DLC violates the FSD
Like making a toy that only worked with a specific type of battery
Or that DLC isn't covered under the FSD because DRM doesn't allow you to lend, sell, or give it away
I still don't think it applies though.

Online pass is just a free thing included in the new copy. And it's left up to the owner weather they want to sell it or keep it.'
They could have just as easily not included it in the box and charged everybody full price for it. That's perfectly alright under copyright law.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

STEP 4: STRAP IT ON!
Really? Someone who has massive novelwriting ambitions, but no talent got stuck with writing up the online pass card and decided to get sassy?

 

[Dogstile]

The overwhelming majority of gamers apparently don't agree with you, because online passes have so far been very successful, which is why more and more games keep getting them.

Actually, there was a news story on this very site saying EA wasn't making much off the online pass. Only thing is, its actually cheap as hell to implement, so they'll keep doing it.

I still don't understand it. I like to comparing it to buying a parking ticket. You've paid for that spot (on the server, for game terms) for however long (in this case, forever, if you want to play it for that long). Now what exactly is the difference if you give it to someone else and leave? The spot's been paid for after all.

At least if they're gonna do it, people can admit that its a dick move. Because it really is.

OT: Not gonna affect my preorder, but I may be tempted to email them expressing my dismay at this. Dick move.