surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
Good point! The other thing about online passes is the fact that there are people out there who strictly despise them, and won't buy the game at all because of them. I know that it's not enough people to make the publishers worry much, but think of it another way.
Pretend that all $60 for a new game goes directly to the developer/publisher, and all $10 goes toward them with an online pass. If there are 100 people not willing to buy new because of the pass, that's $6,000 lost profit. Now if all those people bought used and got an online pass, that's only $1,000 profit for them. They're missing out on $5,000 just because of their stubbornness.
It's just a way for them to try and cash in on a part of the market they normally didn't get anything on. Hopefully they'll actually listen to us gamers and realize that all of us a customers to them, whether we bought new or used.
Pretend that all $60 for a new game goes directly to the developer/publisher, and all $10 goes toward them with an online pass. If there are 100 people not willing to buy new because of the pass, that's $6,000 lost profit. Now if all those people bought used and got an online pass, that's only $1,000 profit for them. They're missing out on $5,000 just because of their stubbornness.
It's just a way for them to try and cash in on a part of the market they normally didn't get anything on. Hopefully they'll actually listen to us gamers and realize that all of us a customers to them, whether we bought new or used.
This entire point is based on the premise that an individual will pick one or the other whereas in actuality if said individual has enough free income and the desire to purchase both games then an extra £15/$10 isn't going to be that big of a deal.
Take as an example the indie bundles that steam sell. Because of their popularity im sure the indie devs get a nice slice of money. These bundles don't just sell because indie game fans see a bargain, they sell because indie games fans are rabid supporters of indie game devs.
If "Claudius" wants both games and is insistent and loyal to the smaller dev then nothing will stop him from buying that game.
This whole issue is ridiculous and every point raised so far against the pass scheme has been based on nothing but presumption and conjecture. Online passes could be implemented tomorrow on all games and I would wager that this time next year the industry would not have suffered on iota.
Take as an example the indie bundles that steam sell. Because of their popularity im sure the indie devs get a nice slice of money. These bundles don't just sell because indie game fans see a bargain, they sell because indie games fans are rabid supporters of indie game devs.
If "Claudius" wants both games and is insistent and loyal to the smaller dev then nothing will stop him from buying that game.
This whole issue is ridiculous and every point raised so far against the pass scheme has been based on nothing but presumption and conjecture. Online passes could be implemented tomorrow on all games and I would wager that this time next year the industry would not have suffered on iota.
It's an interesting idea and, like all the Online Pass reactionary nonsense, has no real basis in logic or fact to back the idea up. All of the reactionary nonsense has been like this.
For example, EA spending millions on an online mode for Mass Effect 3 to sell online pass when, under most common markets, less than 40% of video gamings market will attempt the online (blame all the little children who think dropping the N bomb is cool) in most games and of that, roughly 5% support the DLC. By Jims accounting, EA is spending $100 to make $1. It's a fucking retarded conspiracy theory.
Just like this. The type of gamer who cares about supporting a developer is not the kind of gamer who buys used to begin with. Much less considering how to support the smaller developers while screwing the bigger developers. Fact of the matter is, this scenario described above just will not happen in a realistic scenario. Let's just start with buying two current games used for $90 to begin with. A savy consumer can easily find new games cheaper than used prices at gamestop anyway.
For example, EA spending millions on an online mode for Mass Effect 3 to sell online pass when, under most common markets, less than 40% of video gamings market will attempt the online (blame all the little children who think dropping the N bomb is cool) in most games and of that, roughly 5% support the DLC. By Jims accounting, EA is spending $100 to make $1. It's a fucking retarded conspiracy theory.
Just like this. The type of gamer who cares about supporting a developer is not the kind of gamer who buys used to begin with. Much less considering how to support the smaller developers while screwing the bigger developers. Fact of the matter is, this scenario described above just will not happen in a realistic scenario. Let's just start with buying two current games used for $90 to begin with. A savy consumer can easily find new games cheaper than used prices at gamestop anyway.
I have to agree with sheppy. Who is to say that just because a game has an online pass people won't buy it new? Wait a few months and price drops and people will buy a new game. I think the biggest issue with the online passes is everybody's instinct to buy something as soon as it comes out is being tested. Everybody knows there are gamers that will wait a few days to pick up a used copy of a game just to save money. Now if everybody has to pay an extra $10 you are paying more for a used copy then a new copy.
Thanks guys for basically calling the theory i cared enough about to put time into writing out 'nothing but reactionary nonsense'. :)
I disagree. Yes if someone wants to support a developer they still will, mostly. It is a sliding scale though (between not caring and fully supporting a dev), those who still want to support but less so, will buy some games used that they wouldn't have. That's not the main point though.
The average person will still buy both used games and new games. Saying that's not the case is, to me, 'rediculous reactionary nonsense'. If you agree that the average gamer will for whatever reason still buy both (while passes are not in every game), you would have to agree that the online pass must then enter the average buyer's mind as a new value variable and this has to, on average, affect the distribution of which games were bought new. If you don't see that as using logic, i'm sorry you find my ideas so preschool, you superbrain.
I disagree. Yes if someone wants to support a developer they still will, mostly. It is a sliding scale though (between not caring and fully supporting a dev), those who still want to support but less so, will buy some games used that they wouldn't have. That's not the main point though.
The average person will still buy both used games and new games. Saying that's not the case is, to me, 'rediculous reactionary nonsense'. If you agree that the average gamer will for whatever reason still buy both (while passes are not in every game), you would have to agree that the online pass must then enter the average buyer's mind as a new value variable and this has to, on average, affect the distribution of which games were bought new. If you don't see that as using logic, i'm sorry you find my ideas so preschool, you superbrain.
Doesn't this entirely depend on how much the online pass costs? If the cost of a used game + the online pass is still much less than the cost of the new game, then it seems like a viable option, right?
@jazzpanda
My problem is, like the controversy Jim is trying desperately to stir up, your argument has nary a basis in any buying trends or applicable current market variables. What it reaks of is some nightmare scenario that couldn't apply. As I stated before, the price savings of buying used is hardly substantial enough (at least through Gamestop) to make much of a difference. But since I'm into board gaming huge right now, allow me to take this trend and apply it to what's currently going on in board gaming.
Companies are releasing promos for their Deck-Building games. The original concept was when you bought a deck-building game, everything was included. Recently, however, companies are working on one off promos like Vortex for Ascension or the Werewolves for Thunderstone. As a prime example, take Nightfall. A game which launched about a year ago which had named dividers however, it had a space for several cards which were promos. Since the promos were limited, you have literally thousands of gamers who have a place for cards they'll never have access to. The theory is that these shinanigans will of course lead to the destruction of the current deck-building trend. After all, this is the crap CCGs do, not LCGs or Deck-builders.
But, this scenario, that has been presented as a problem, has not occured. In fact, deck-building and LCG titles have been increasing in popularity and, aside from a very small and very vocal minority, this trend hasn't negatively or positively impacted the market in any way, shape, or form. This thing, that was set to doom the genre, (thus, like Online passes) had no impact. Just as the online passes have not had a positive or a negative impact aside from a small, and very vocal, minority. This very same minority, I might add, has such a trend of common bitching that too most game developers, they are now officially ignored. The boys who cried wolf have officially negated their ability to impact their favorite industry because of the frequency of which they fly off the handle. Thus, reactionary nonsense...
My problem is, like the controversy Jim is trying desperately to stir up, your argument has nary a basis in any buying trends or applicable current market variables. What it reaks of is some nightmare scenario that couldn't apply. As I stated before, the price savings of buying used is hardly substantial enough (at least through Gamestop) to make much of a difference. But since I'm into board gaming huge right now, allow me to take this trend and apply it to what's currently going on in board gaming.
Companies are releasing promos for their Deck-Building games. The original concept was when you bought a deck-building game, everything was included. Recently, however, companies are working on one off promos like Vortex for Ascension or the Werewolves for Thunderstone. As a prime example, take Nightfall. A game which launched about a year ago which had named dividers however, it had a space for several cards which were promos. Since the promos were limited, you have literally thousands of gamers who have a place for cards they'll never have access to. The theory is that these shinanigans will of course lead to the destruction of the current deck-building trend. After all, this is the crap CCGs do, not LCGs or Deck-builders.
But, this scenario, that has been presented as a problem, has not occured. In fact, deck-building and LCG titles have been increasing in popularity and, aside from a very small and very vocal minority, this trend hasn't negatively or positively impacted the market in any way, shape, or form. This thing, that was set to doom the genre, (thus, like Online passes) had no impact. Just as the online passes have not had a positive or a negative impact aside from a small, and very vocal, minority. This very same minority, I might add, has such a trend of common bitching that too most game developers, they are now officially ignored. The boys who cried wolf have officially negated their ability to impact their favorite industry because of the frequency of which they fly off the handle. Thus, reactionary nonsense...
Sheppy, I see what you are saying. I think first of all there is a big price difference between used and not used for most people. Most used games i've bought are not from gamestop and not as soon as the game is released so usually 30-50% off the new price. Gamestop is a special case not related to my point.
Secondly, you say my theory has no basis in buying trends or reality. I'm saying online passes act as a value variable that will in some cases change which game a person buys new and which not. I believe this is the case because i already see myself doing it, case in point!! The only games i bought new were always the ones i wanted to support, now i find myself weighing up another option and occasionally buying a new game that i previously wouldn't have, this leaves me less money hence i will in the end, buy less new games from those i support. If this is not reality, then you must believe either: Everyone will buy new from now on (not gonna happen) or that consumers will completely ignore or be oblivious to this new 'cost/value/effort required' variable. I agree that the masses are stupid, but are they THAT stupid?
Secondly, you say my theory has no basis in buying trends or reality. I'm saying online passes act as a value variable that will in some cases change which game a person buys new and which not. I believe this is the case because i already see myself doing it, case in point!! The only games i bought new were always the ones i wanted to support, now i find myself weighing up another option and occasionally buying a new game that i previously wouldn't have, this leaves me less money hence i will in the end, buy less new games from those i support. If this is not reality, then you must believe either: Everyone will buy new from now on (not gonna happen) or that consumers will completely ignore or be oblivious to this new 'cost/value/effort required' variable. I agree that the masses are stupid, but are they THAT stupid?
