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

[userwhoquitthesite]

god fucking dammit.

If i didnt already have my preorder paid off, I would just skip this game forever now

online passes are now and will always be bullshit. And yes, i know, Im getting the game new, so i dont need to worry about not playing everything, but its the principle of the thing. Its why i did not and never will get the new mortal kombat.

The games already cost way too much (especially in my case, since i got the special edition, but thats neither here nor there) and they want to ***** and complain that someone who bought a used game is playing? no. bullshit.

They GOT their money for the game. they GOT their money for the server time. I'm with OP, if this is the future of the business, I won't be purchasing from them anymore.

Gamers today are self entitled.

It's not entitlement, it's an expectation of decent business practices. It isn't even an unreasonable expectation. This sort of crap is what pisses me off the most about this, you guys who think its an okay or even GOOD idea.

Gah. Burn'em. Burn'em all

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

well think of it this way, people getting up in arms about online pass codes, gotta remember that back in the day when you could only register a CD-Key to one online account made used games COMPLETELY inelligable for online play if the previous owner used the code, you had to buy it AGAIN new so you could play online...Same shit higher price, then again maybe I'm just used to large corporate entities screwing over those who consume their products, not like this kinda crap has been going on in sometimes worse ways for decades, hell centuries, there's always someone making a proffit off of the little guy(consumer, serf, slave) stopped suprising me about, maybe 5 years after my brain was formed enough to start to comprehend logic and rational thought.

Either you buy the game cuz it looks awesome or you don't, this isn't a new trend, and it isn't an outrage, it's just another version of the same ploy we been forcefed since forever.

Also I tend to buy things on steam, generally when they're on sale around christmas or summer time at %70 or more off, giving me savings on NEW product, in other words I get the same game I would have payed more for used, and I don't have the hassle...

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The EULA is a bit of legal mumbo jumbo which is absolutely non-binding under EU law, and questionably valid under US law (it depends on exactly how you acknowledge your agreement to it, and on how you acquire the software in the first place. So for example, a game bought through Steam has an ironclad EULA under both sets of law, while one for a Steamworks game bought in a brick and mortar store is questionable under US law, and unenforceable under EU law; in the US, the lower courts have been going back and forth on the matter for decades, while the Supreme Court has yet to hear a case which touches on it.) Basically, there is such a thing as a unconscionable contract. If I were to have you sign a contract which says, for example, that I get to kill you if you disagree with me, whether you signed it properly or not, it would be unenforceable. While the EULAs aren't quite as ridiculous as that, they are right on the border of being legally unconscionable, and therefore not worth the paper they're printed on. They're there more to scare the consumer into compliance than to do anything in the courts, anyway; if a case actually gets to court involving the EULA, the EULA has already failed to serve a good chunk of its purpose.

I agree, and i never said EULA was the best thing in the world, but currently it is what does let publishers do all sorts of stuff. Thing is, no matter how messed up and legally questionable the whole TOS/EULA is, it's the thing they have and we do not.

Maybe, just maybe, if all those people who whine on forums about how they can't get multiplayer on second-hand games would gather up and actually try to force some law changes it would do any good, but all that crying about online passes is just absurd.

More to the point however, with how whole cloud computing is developing, the problem will solve itself in a decade or so, depending on internet access improvements across the globe. There will be no game trading when everything will simply be streamed and all You will buy will be access code to the game, no data on user side at all.

I donate most of the money (which is always well above the average purchasing price) to the EFF every time I buy a humble indie bundle. Short of becoming a lawyer or moving to California (the EFF is based out of there, and doesn't have local chapters elsewhere the way the ACLU and the NRA do), I'm doing just about all I can.

Edit: That was just as a rebuttal to the whole "if only people on the internet would do something about it..." bit. Between donating to the EFF, voting with my wallet, and arguing about it on forums, I'm not sure what more I can do, although any suggestions would be appreciated. As for the rest? You're probably right. I think cloud gaming is still a ways off, though. We tend to forget just how thinly spread highspeed internet is even in the first world, and even with good highspeed internet, the technology isn't there yet to make cloud gaming possible. Cloud storage, sure, but I think we're at least 5-10 years out from cloud gaming being feasible, with another decade beyond that before it starts to overtake traditional business models (although by that point, digital distribution will be more widespread.) Regardless, I don't see hard copies ever completely going away. If it was just a matter of requiring the average consumer to have fast enough internet to download whatever they wanted, hard copies of music would have died out about 10 years ago. Instead, not only can you still buy CDs, but vinyl has made something of a comeback. Never underestimate the power of a tangible product.

 

[Magicmad5511]

Don't these codes come with the game when you buy it retail instead of pre-owned because if so, I don't care.
Cause if so it doesn't matter. It sort of makes sense to make sure the money goes to the developers instead of the Game shop.

Again though if it comes with the retail game I don't care.

 

[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?