surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Basically it'll get to the point where you're paying for the basis of the game then paying for the rest of it.
too bad everyone who works in publishing is so out of touch with regular people and common sense that they won't do it.
So yes, good post, but I have no hope for the future because of the precedent that's been set.
So yes, good post, but I have no hope for the future because of the precedent that's been set.
I really dig your idea of single-player or multi-player only versions. I don't believe any game has actually done that in the past, though I think I recall something similar on PC. Regardless, it's a model that needs to be implemented since every single game is $60 now a days.
Not every game warrants that price, either. You can't tell me things like MorphX and that stupid Zombie Guitar game are worth full price.
Not every game warrants that price, either. You can't tell me things like MorphX and that stupid Zombie Guitar game are worth full price.
Most of the community will simply not accept any difference between used and new games, no matter what.
Why? Because they're myopic, and they can't think in terms of short- vs. long-term best interests.
Why? Because they're myopic, and they can't think in terms of short- vs. long-term best interests.
Its all a crock.. why not just require a 10% surcharge from companies that sell used games per unit sold? Or even better stop making dumb games no one wants to pay $60 a pop for? Bad enough you pay $100 or more for a game and its add ons in the end.
Some good points, and I agree with a lot of the points. The one thing I don't like is when people keep saying "small bonus areas that don't affect the rest of the game are therefore okay to leave out of the disc" like Rage's sewers. I just don't like it because there is really no standard for what is "optional bonus content." I've used this example several times before, but you could argue that a good 90 or more percent of Oblivion is "optional bonus content" and all of it could have been taken off of the disc and sold separately as DLC using the same logic that defends rage's sewers. I can only imagine when they start playing the lame machinima Gamestop commercials exclaiming "Preorder Oblivion to get the exclusive fighter's guild missions!" Meanwhile the arena is only obtainable from amazon preorder, arena is obtainable from an included code, and the dark brotherhood is day 1 DLC. Even if Rage's sewers truly weren't worth complaining about, I still think that if people let that slide, companies are only going to push it further, without question, so there is merit to actually care about it.
Of course after Arkham City's sales, I've lost all hope in anybody else actually caring. I guess I'm just going to be one of those gamer's left behind and forgotten in an industry increasingly becoming full of passes, codes, day 1 DLC, DRM, mandatory online connections, and stagnating single player (and even stagnating local multiplayer, why the fuck do I have to be online to play DR2 coop?!?).
Of course after Arkham City's sales, I've lost all hope in anybody else actually caring. I guess I'm just going to be one of those gamer's left behind and forgotten in an industry increasingly becoming full of passes, codes, day 1 DLC, DRM, mandatory online connections, and stagnating single player (and even stagnating local multiplayer, why the fuck do I have to be online to play DR2 coop?!?).
That said, my general pro or neutral views on online passes is entirely dependent on them being done in a decent manner. The Arkham City fuck up is certainly bad for everybody.
Still, I think game developers and publishers are just idiots some times. I mean, the launch of Dark Souls had no online passes at all, yet it had fuck up written all over it (this, despite being a great game!).
Still, I think game developers and publishers are just idiots some times. I mean, the launch of Dark Souls had no online passes at all, yet it had fuck up written all over it (this, despite being a great game!).
@llort het: All those reasons you just mentioned is why I'm finally getting a Wii and keeping my eye on the Wii U.
Yeah, there's a chance like you've mentioned before that the Wii U library won't be as big as the PS3 or 360's, but what's the point of having a large total number of games if most of them are games you have to jump through hoops to play?
Looking at what's going on now with these passes and DLC and such, maybe it's not such a bad thing that the Wii's online features aren't as robust as PS3/360 or that the Wii didn't get many of the same exact games as PS3/360. Something to think about.
Yeah, there's a chance like you've mentioned before that the Wii U library won't be as big as the PS3 or 360's, but what's the point of having a large total number of games if most of them are games you have to jump through hoops to play?
Looking at what's going on now with these passes and DLC and such, maybe it's not such a bad thing that the Wii's online features aren't as robust as PS3/360 or that the Wii didn't get many of the same exact games as PS3/360. Something to think about.
There is still the fact that plenty of the world doesn't have Internet obviously I do but they would be missing out even if they bought it new
This all seems very reasonable. Good post. If the new Cod for instance had a single player only disc for 20 bucks I'd grab it. Where I do enjoy the multiplayer I'm not gonna pony up 60 for a franchise I am pretty tired of. Maybe later I would snag the multiplayer disc if enough of my friends were frequenting that mode. Interesting ideas.
@llort het I completely agree that the crappy preorder things from various stores/energy drinks/diaper brands is fucking annoying. I rented Batman: AC just for that fact. There's no excuse for having Robin exclusive to a store, then offer it to the rest of the world a month later. Things like different skins used to be standard rewards. I've got to buy a shitty energy drink to unlock a skin? Piss on all that.
I support online passes because it's no extra cost to the consumer if they buy the product new. So long as used games are a huge part of our industry's culture, developers/publishers aren't getting all of the profit. I don't think used games should go away, and I see this as a viable solution, giving gamers the choice to buy used, but less incentive to do so.
Seriously, they could just say if you don't have an "online pass" you can't play online and FORCE people to buy the games new. Atleast they still offer a way to buy used AND play online. Look at PC games with their registration keys, I don't want that.
I support online passes because it's no extra cost to the consumer if they buy the product new. So long as used games are a huge part of our industry's culture, developers/publishers aren't getting all of the profit. I don't think used games should go away, and I see this as a viable solution, giving gamers the choice to buy used, but less incentive to do so.
Seriously, they could just say if you don't have an "online pass" you can't play online and FORCE people to buy the games new. Atleast they still offer a way to buy used AND play online. Look at PC games with their registration keys, I don't want that.
"Of course after Arkham City's sales, I've lost all hope in anybody else actually caring"
This right here sums up how I see online passes. This industry is one of the few industries that quality speaks louder than the talking suits who make controversial statements and moves like the online pass. Many people including me are not gonna miss out on a masterpiece like Arkham City because of some silly online pass. It's sounds bad I know but that's how this industry is and how 99% of gamers think.
Ps. I'm posting this from my phone so spelling is goin to be bad.
This right here sums up how I see online passes. This industry is one of the few industries that quality speaks louder than the talking suits who make controversial statements and moves like the online pass. Many people including me are not gonna miss out on a masterpiece like Arkham City because of some silly online pass. It's sounds bad I know but that's how this industry is and how 99% of gamers think.
Ps. I'm posting this from my phone so spelling is goin to be bad.
"Locking your consumers out of modes that will be primary draws for their purchasing dollar (i.e. multiplayer modes in games that are known for their multiplayer), things they're already expecting access to with their initial purchase, is pretty much a dick move."
Used players aren't technically the developers/publishers customers, their gamestops customers :/
I see a lot of articles criticizing how developers/publishers are trying to give some form of incentive to buy their product new but not a whole giving good alternative solutions :/
Used players aren't technically the developers/publishers customers, their gamestops customers :/
I see a lot of articles criticizing how developers/publishers are trying to give some form of incentive to buy their product new but not a whole giving good alternative solutions :/
You know nekobun, if you're just going to repeat everything that Jim Sterling said, you could at least try to play devil's advocate, or write without the constant sarcasm and derision to the topic. You, like most of the people that frequent here, just seem to see the online pass method as an outright bad idea, when you already seem to fundamentally agree with it, but you only like it if it's phrased JUST SO. There is no between the Batman AC Catwoman pass and the Rage Anarchy Pack. One is content that is withheld, and the other is content that is withheld. The only difference is phrasing and advertisement.
People like you flailed against the Catwoman "online pass" thing specifically because it was advertised months in advance. Now why is that a bad thing? Because it's intrinsic to the experience? Well, that's not for you, or anybody but Rocksteady to decide, now is it? It's their product, after all. They decided to market it as bonus content, so that's what it is, and if they hadn't advertised it as withheld content at all, like Rage, then nobody would've batted an eye at it, and that is proof of the blatant ignorant hypocrisy of the most vocal of gamers. The fact that the passes didn't work as advertised is a flaw, yes, but the entire marketing scheme is not in anyway malevolent, unless you choose to believe it is. All the same, withheld content is withheld content. If people want all of the game they should be willing to pay full price, or accept some form of sacrifice. Fair is fair. What Batman AC, Rage, all Bioware games, etc is a beneficial way for companies to provide incentive to people to buy new, and only minor content is lost if the game is bought used.
And how is portioning out the game into 3 different packages any different, or cheaper, or less confusing to the customer? Used games are too expensive so publishers should just dismantle their products because people only want so much of it? That's inane and backwards, and creates far more problems than it fixes. Production costs would go up, the base cost of the game would rise, people would still buy used, but now there'd just be more versions of each game to buy used. It's ridiculous to believe that any one actually prefer that, unless you take into account the people that are just being contrarian because Online Passes Are Evil.
The only way the system will become fair and accepted is if every body stops panicking every time something happens differently from the way the expect, and it doesn't help that every wanna-be journalist with a keyboard is trying to rile people up, especially since most of you are going to get these games new anyways. It seems to be far too easy to trick people into being prejudicial, because it's so much easier to be pissed off than understanding. Games are still getting better year by year, just the way they're being marketed is starting to shift because it's become known that the vast majority of people with a video gaming habit have a stable internet connection these days. Used game sales have always been a sort of detraction, and now they're trying to find ways to recoup that lost income, and that's okay. Most people buy new anyways, but at least this method doesn't just lock out a copy of the game. The used market is still allowed to function, and hopefully used games will become cheaper as this becomes more prevalent (I shouldn't be able to walk into Gamestop and find Shivering Isles being sold for more than a new copy of Oblivion with all DLC included. Nothing regulates used games).
Everybody just needs to take a step back and be calm and rational about this stuff. It's clear that everybody that comes to sites like this cares about video-games, at least a little, so why be so bitter and reactionary about every bit of potentially inconvenient news? The way video games are being sold is a little different today than it was when I started, but it's still a cheaper hobby to get into than ever, with systems offering more comprehensive services and alarmingly good games compared to a decade ago. These are good times, and it's certainly a waste of aggression to go after a ten dollar service charge like it's the fucking antichrist. Hell, I get charged for my convenience every time I do business over the phone. It's not like this is a new concept.
People like you flailed against the Catwoman "online pass" thing specifically because it was advertised months in advance. Now why is that a bad thing? Because it's intrinsic to the experience? Well, that's not for you, or anybody but Rocksteady to decide, now is it? It's their product, after all. They decided to market it as bonus content, so that's what it is, and if they hadn't advertised it as withheld content at all, like Rage, then nobody would've batted an eye at it, and that is proof of the blatant ignorant hypocrisy of the most vocal of gamers. The fact that the passes didn't work as advertised is a flaw, yes, but the entire marketing scheme is not in anyway malevolent, unless you choose to believe it is. All the same, withheld content is withheld content. If people want all of the game they should be willing to pay full price, or accept some form of sacrifice. Fair is fair. What Batman AC, Rage, all Bioware games, etc is a beneficial way for companies to provide incentive to people to buy new, and only minor content is lost if the game is bought used.
And how is portioning out the game into 3 different packages any different, or cheaper, or less confusing to the customer? Used games are too expensive so publishers should just dismantle their products because people only want so much of it? That's inane and backwards, and creates far more problems than it fixes. Production costs would go up, the base cost of the game would rise, people would still buy used, but now there'd just be more versions of each game to buy used. It's ridiculous to believe that any one actually prefer that, unless you take into account the people that are just being contrarian because Online Passes Are Evil.
The only way the system will become fair and accepted is if every body stops panicking every time something happens differently from the way the expect, and it doesn't help that every wanna-be journalist with a keyboard is trying to rile people up, especially since most of you are going to get these games new anyways. It seems to be far too easy to trick people into being prejudicial, because it's so much easier to be pissed off than understanding. Games are still getting better year by year, just the way they're being marketed is starting to shift because it's become known that the vast majority of people with a video gaming habit have a stable internet connection these days. Used game sales have always been a sort of detraction, and now they're trying to find ways to recoup that lost income, and that's okay. Most people buy new anyways, but at least this method doesn't just lock out a copy of the game. The used market is still allowed to function, and hopefully used games will become cheaper as this becomes more prevalent (I shouldn't be able to walk into Gamestop and find Shivering Isles being sold for more than a new copy of Oblivion with all DLC included. Nothing regulates used games).
Everybody just needs to take a step back and be calm and rational about this stuff. It's clear that everybody that comes to sites like this cares about video-games, at least a little, so why be so bitter and reactionary about every bit of potentially inconvenient news? The way video games are being sold is a little different today than it was when I started, but it's still a cheaper hobby to get into than ever, with systems offering more comprehensive services and alarmingly good games compared to a decade ago. These are good times, and it's certainly a waste of aggression to go after a ten dollar service charge like it's the fucking antichrist. Hell, I get charged for my convenience every time I do business over the phone. It's not like this is a new concept.
Hurry up Wii U I need you in my room already :(
@KenAkuma
Used players aren't technically gamestops's customers, they are players who want used and rent games.
What makes you think gamestop is the only business out there that does this?
@KenAkuma
Used players aren't technically gamestops's customers, they are players who want used and rent games.
What makes you think gamestop is the only business out there that does this?
"there's no reason an online or offline pass should cost more than that five-dollar difference. "
The point of this isn't to make money off of consumers. It's to reassure retailers to purchase a second print of a game without having to discount. The whole point is to make people pay for the full experience. If it's used, they'll see little rewards like $10. If it's new, publishers will gain access to the full rewards from a retailer.
It's a win win situation if a consumer chooses to play the game. As long as consumers do, the publisher won't change a thing.
The point of this isn't to make money off of consumers. It's to reassure retailers to purchase a second print of a game without having to discount. The whole point is to make people pay for the full experience. If it's used, they'll see little rewards like $10. If it's new, publishers will gain access to the full rewards from a retailer.
It's a win win situation if a consumer chooses to play the game. As long as consumers do, the publisher won't change a thing.
Every industry has used business. NO industry is guaranteed any money after the initial sale. Used business has been around as long as business itself. And to demand a profit off of the same product multiple times i technically illegal. Look it up.
This is why MGM doesn't demand you pay them $10 to unlock the used DVD you just bought at a garage sale. This is why Ford doesn't lock the used car you just bought and demand money in order to drive it. This is why Apple doesn't lock out features of their iDevices when bought used and demand money to unlock them.
Every single one of these companies has costs associated with their products after they leave the warehouses. This is why the "server costs" excuse that the industry loves to use is a lie. If it was server costs, then they wouldn't be locking out single player content as well. DO NOT buy games with an online pass. DO NOT support such anti consumer practices.
They are stealing from you. Buying used is not illegal and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Online Passes are scams designed to make you think that you have done something wrong. You haven't. This is why I never buy any game that has any sort of online pass. I buy it used or rent it. I will NOT support that kind of anti consumer practice.
Don't be fooled into thinking you are somehow taking money away from these "poor" developers. Don't be fooled into thinking the "deserve" to profit off of subsequent purchases of the same product. Just imagine if you have to pay the manufacturer for every used product you bought. Can't think of any other company that demands to profit off of your used purchase?? That's because none exist.
This is why MGM doesn't demand you pay them $10 to unlock the used DVD you just bought at a garage sale. This is why Ford doesn't lock the used car you just bought and demand money in order to drive it. This is why Apple doesn't lock out features of their iDevices when bought used and demand money to unlock them.
Every single one of these companies has costs associated with their products after they leave the warehouses. This is why the "server costs" excuse that the industry loves to use is a lie. If it was server costs, then they wouldn't be locking out single player content as well. DO NOT buy games with an online pass. DO NOT support such anti consumer practices.
They are stealing from you. Buying used is not illegal and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Online Passes are scams designed to make you think that you have done something wrong. You haven't. This is why I never buy any game that has any sort of online pass. I buy it used or rent it. I will NOT support that kind of anti consumer practice.
Don't be fooled into thinking you are somehow taking money away from these "poor" developers. Don't be fooled into thinking the "deserve" to profit off of subsequent purchases of the same product. Just imagine if you have to pay the manufacturer for every used product you bought. Can't think of any other company that demands to profit off of your used purchase?? That's because none exist.
I wish someone would take the free post launch dlc pack route. Day one dlc still feels bad, like we're missing content that should have been included from the start. Post launch dlc for free feels like a reward, and gets people that maybe don't look at dlc much to download their free copy and try it out
@sonintega
everything I got from your argument was don't fight something that you feel is unfair because everyone knows that when something changes it changes for the right reason. Am I correct in viewing the basis of your argument this way?
You are as guilty as the people you counter my friend. You sit at your keyboard and continue to rile people up for your side of defending publishers right to do this. (You see what I did there, I made you sound just as bad as the people you argue against really amazing how easy it is to do when you hurl insults their way is it not?)
everything I got from your argument was don't fight something that you feel is unfair because everyone knows that when something changes it changes for the right reason. Am I correct in viewing the basis of your argument this way?
You are as guilty as the people you counter my friend. You sit at your keyboard and continue to rile people up for your side of defending publishers right to do this. (You see what I did there, I made you sound just as bad as the people you argue against really amazing how easy it is to do when you hurl insults their way is it not?)
@EKGProd
I love the language that you use: DEMAND (multiple times), ILLEGAL, ANTI CONSUMER.
These are all words that come with negative images, but the fact is there is no DEMAND being made from publishers.
Its a request.
Do are under no obligation to buy the extra DLC. It is totally optional. If the developer, makes some money from an Online Pass, then whats the big deal? Yeah, maybe they DON'T deserve it, but should we not be supporting the people that support US by making the games?
I love the language that you use: DEMAND (multiple times), ILLEGAL, ANTI CONSUMER.
These are all words that come with negative images, but the fact is there is no DEMAND being made from publishers.
Its a request.
Do are under no obligation to buy the extra DLC. It is totally optional. If the developer, makes some money from an Online Pass, then whats the big deal? Yeah, maybe they DON'T deserve it, but should we not be supporting the people that support US by making the games?
@GamerNerd
Its not about fighting change, or even about NOT fighting change.
Things change, its just life. Things starts costing money that didn't cost money before. This happens everywhere to everyone.
Its not about fighting change, or even about NOT fighting change.
Things change, its just life. Things starts costing money that didn't cost money before. This happens everywhere to everyone.
@Gorescream
If their buying their games used from gamestop than yes, technically they are gamestop's customers....
Of course I know gamestop isn't the only business that deals used games but that doesn't change my point.
If your buying used/renting, your that store/service/person's customer.
If their buying their games used from gamestop than yes, technically they are gamestop's customers....
Of course I know gamestop isn't the only business that deals used games but that doesn't change my point.
If your buying used/renting, your that store/service/person's customer.
All these ppl talking about getting the Wii U are silly. Unless nintendo fucks up online again, you can bet your ass online passes will be present from 3rd party companies. You think EA is gonna say ” well its nintendo, so we can't use online passes”. Hell no. Even if nintendo made a no pass policy, that would just give 3rd party companies one more reason to screw nintendo.
@Yotanaka
If I were denying any changes throughout time then I wouldn't be typing to you through my laptop as we type, my point was change doesn't always signify change for a common good. I should have specified, my apologies. To argue change is always good i.e. the change in the way DLC is presented in the industry and to just bend over and take the fact that there is a spinet of code that prevents you to play part of the game unless you take the time to enter another code to play the game which you have purchased is down right silly and impractical and a hinderenous on your consumer which in my own opinion is a stupid thing to do.
Especially when you have an established franchise such as the ones that mainly use these silly online passes. If you have a fanbase and treat your consumer with respect time and time again it shows that in the long wrong your following will be less flimsy. Valve is the perfect example of how to do your product and marketing right. Not to alienate but to reward.
If I were denying any changes throughout time then I wouldn't be typing to you through my laptop as we type, my point was change doesn't always signify change for a common good. I should have specified, my apologies. To argue change is always good i.e. the change in the way DLC is presented in the industry and to just bend over and take the fact that there is a spinet of code that prevents you to play part of the game unless you take the time to enter another code to play the game which you have purchased is down right silly and impractical and a hinderenous on your consumer which in my own opinion is a stupid thing to do.
Especially when you have an established franchise such as the ones that mainly use these silly online passes. If you have a fanbase and treat your consumer with respect time and time again it shows that in the long wrong your following will be less flimsy. Valve is the perfect example of how to do your product and marketing right. Not to alienate but to reward.
@gamernerd
Its funny that you mention Valve.
When I first bought Half Life on PC, it came with a CD key. Yet, I wouldn't say that the relationship between Valve and I is worse off because of that. Did i just get anal raped by Valve? No. They gave me a 20 or so digit number and i entered it. it was pretty easy. In fact, a monkey could do it! I will be honest and tell you that the only diference i see here is.... ok wait, there isnt one.
If i lost my Half Life cd key, i would most likely need to buy a new copy of the game to play it legitamately. So I would still need to shell out more money to play it. Should I tell Valve how evil they are for making me buy another code?
No.
Thats the answer. I was the idiot that lost it, i should be the one to pay.
In closing: if you dont have a code for Batman: AC, BF3 or any other game that you feel you were screwed out of content in purchasing, then dont buy used. Buy new. Get the code, enter it, (trust me, its easy) and then you can smile.
Its funny that you mention Valve.
When I first bought Half Life on PC, it came with a CD key. Yet, I wouldn't say that the relationship between Valve and I is worse off because of that. Did i just get anal raped by Valve? No. They gave me a 20 or so digit number and i entered it. it was pretty easy. In fact, a monkey could do it! I will be honest and tell you that the only diference i see here is.... ok wait, there isnt one.
If i lost my Half Life cd key, i would most likely need to buy a new copy of the game to play it legitamately. So I would still need to shell out more money to play it. Should I tell Valve how evil they are for making me buy another code?
No.
Thats the answer. I was the idiot that lost it, i should be the one to pay.
In closing: if you dont have a code for Batman: AC, BF3 or any other game that you feel you were screwed out of content in purchasing, then dont buy used. Buy new. Get the code, enter it, (trust me, its easy) and then you can smile.
Although a bit of a 'reactionary' tirade in itself, I agree with what Sonintega said. It isn't that much of a fiasco to pay a bit extra for missing content in a used game. However, the only thing I would like to see is developers etc making games that are worth the asking price for a new game. Arkham City is worth the brand new asking price so I have no problems buying brand new. The biggest incentive to buy brand new, day one release games, is that it is a good game with decent content that is worth the price of admission. Get that right and I'll be a happy little consumer.
@Yotanaka It's also interesting that you mention cd keys when the pc was and still is notorious for the issue of pirating versus used games are completely different subject matter. They are in themselves completely different subject you are comparing a place where someone at no point paid for the game and at a different point someone has paid for a brand new copy of said game, but then decided to trade it or sell it or whatever because they acquired legally and thus are distributing it legally by giving up their version of the game to someone else for their enjoyment.
No, cd keys are not like the current online pass at no point did you need to download a portion of the game that was withheld from you. You can't compare the two when we are first talking a different platform with different issues, and we are also talking an entirely different system put forth for entirely different reasons.
No, cd keys are not like the current online pass at no point did you need to download a portion of the game that was withheld from you. You can't compare the two when we are first talking a different platform with different issues, and we are also talking an entirely different system put forth for entirely different reasons.
@YoTanaka I´m sorry, are you really under the impresion that publishers are releasing games to support you? This is a business for them pal, they dont do it for your. Besides Im totally with EKGProd, videogames is the only industry bitching about used market.
Anyway, bitching about it wont solve anything. Ppl needs to learn that actions speak louder than words. If anyone is not comfortable with this, just dont buy the game. If you have the imperative need to play a game, just wait a few months. It is more likely than not that publishers will release some GOTY shit and give you all DLC for free.
Anyway, bitching about it wont solve anything. Ppl needs to learn that actions speak louder than words. If anyone is not comfortable with this, just dont buy the game. If you have the imperative need to play a game, just wait a few months. It is more likely than not that publishers will release some GOTY shit and give you all DLC for free.
@Yotanaka - I understand your point but I don't think there's comparison between CD keys and passes. In the past you could sell your PC game along with the case, manuals CD key and whatever. Now you can't because everything is attached to your own account.
So what's next, people creating ghost accounts just to be able to sell full games in the future?
So what's next, people creating ghost accounts just to be able to sell full games in the future?
@EKGProd
"This is why MGM doesn't demand you pay them $10 to unlock the used DVD you just bought at a garage sale. This is why Ford doesn't lock the used car you just bought and demand money in order to drive it. This is why Apple doesn't lock out features of their iDevices when bought used and demand money to unlock them."
DVD publishers force major retailers to sign agreements that they won't sell new and used DVDs in the same storefront. Redbox has to destroy most DVDs rather than resell them to customers. Video rental stores can sell used DVDs, but they have to pay more for special rental copies. Ford has much higher profit margin on OEM parts and service sold after the sale, which is a lucrative market because, unlike games, a used car deteriorates in terms of value to the new owner. Apple has a huge profit margin, and they make money in a lot of different ways, including with iTunes, and there is that nice battery replacement fee.
The videogame used market is unique. No where else do you see new and used products sold side by side, where the used product offers the exact same experience, with no significant level of deterioration, and with the used product actually being pushed over the new product. Most comparisons fail in multiple ways. But, people will continue to compare them to toasters and microwaves (I've seen both).
"This is why MGM doesn't demand you pay them $10 to unlock the used DVD you just bought at a garage sale. This is why Ford doesn't lock the used car you just bought and demand money in order to drive it. This is why Apple doesn't lock out features of their iDevices when bought used and demand money to unlock them."
DVD publishers force major retailers to sign agreements that they won't sell new and used DVDs in the same storefront. Redbox has to destroy most DVDs rather than resell them to customers. Video rental stores can sell used DVDs, but they have to pay more for special rental copies. Ford has much higher profit margin on OEM parts and service sold after the sale, which is a lucrative market because, unlike games, a used car deteriorates in terms of value to the new owner. Apple has a huge profit margin, and they make money in a lot of different ways, including with iTunes, and there is that nice battery replacement fee.
The videogame used market is unique. No where else do you see new and used products sold side by side, where the used product offers the exact same experience, with no significant level of deterioration, and with the used product actually being pushed over the new product. Most comparisons fail in multiple ways. But, people will continue to compare them to toasters and microwaves (I've seen both).
@Pokota I beg to differ. Even on Amazon you can see get the new or the used version of the same product, even on the same page.
Indeed you did and I didnt notice. Touché.
Still, I rly think that publishers should just stop whinning about something they still get tons of money from. If you take into account DLC, used games players are still players you can take advantage from.
Online passes and crap like that dont seem like the way to go.
Still, I rly think that publishers should just stop whinning about something they still get tons of money from. If you take into account DLC, used games players are still players you can take advantage from.
Online passes and crap like that dont seem like the way to go.
Here is how the film industry deals with used DVD sales; "As part of the deal, Redbox has also agreed to destroy all Warner DVDs after they have gone through their lifecycle in the kiosks, rather than reselling them and further undercutting Warner’s DVD sales." -- http://gigaom.com/video/redbox-makes-nice-with-warner-bros-agrees-to-28-day-window/
Other big-time studios have negotiated for the same thing. The idea that ONLY the videogame industry is fighting sales of used products is way off base.
The thing is, that's a behind-the-scenes deal. The general public doesn't mind stuff if they can't see it, because they never think about it. If videogame publishers had been able to work out a deal with GameStop, I think they would have been happy, but either EA or Activision would have to make the first move, and thus leave themselves open to the other. They aren't allowed to legally "work together" because of anti-trust laws.
The best thing that could happen, and what I hope happens, is that the publishers begin selling online passes to GameStop for them to put in their used games.
Other big-time studios have negotiated for the same thing. The idea that ONLY the videogame industry is fighting sales of used products is way off base.
The thing is, that's a behind-the-scenes deal. The general public doesn't mind stuff if they can't see it, because they never think about it. If videogame publishers had been able to work out a deal with GameStop, I think they would have been happy, but either EA or Activision would have to make the first move, and thus leave themselves open to the other. They aren't allowed to legally "work together" because of anti-trust laws.
The best thing that could happen, and what I hope happens, is that the publishers begin selling online passes to GameStop for them to put in their used games.
pokota is right. It's called "arbitrage," when an equivalent product sells for different prices in different markets. A used video game is equivalent to a new one. Making new games a different market from used games is what the online pass thing is all about. Publishers have two choices: lower their prices so the arbitrage is so small that it strangles reseller's profits, or differentiate their product. They've chosen the latter because they like getting $60/pop and you'll pay it.
Here's something I think everyone debating here should watch it sums up how the industry acts with it's games and DLC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76_sU-Oyx1M
Just listen to the way claptrap speaks about the expenses and how he brags of his materials
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76_sU-Oyx1M
Just listen to the way claptrap speaks about the expenses and how he brags of his materials
I see it getting far worse than it already is.
Eventually it will be pay to play. Like X-box Live or worse. You'll have to buy the game, then spend extra to play it. Every online game will essentially be an MMO. Monthly charges to keep playing. And why not? As long as people are dumb enough to keep shelling out money to be abused, they'll keep doing it. If the demand for your product is high enough where people will pay extra for even the smallest things, the laws of economics say you charge more for it.
Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it.
Eventually it will be pay to play. Like X-box Live or worse. You'll have to buy the game, then spend extra to play it. Every online game will essentially be an MMO. Monthly charges to keep playing. And why not? As long as people are dumb enough to keep shelling out money to be abused, they'll keep doing it. If the demand for your product is high enough where people will pay extra for even the smallest things, the laws of economics say you charge more for it.
Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it.
I seriously thought of a blog post with many of the same ideas months ago. I never got around to finishing it but I'm glad to see someone else agrees/has the same mindset. I don't think the idea of online passes can be a terrible thing if they're handled correctly, but that's not what we're seeing.
follow
