It looks like from here on out, Sony-published PS3 games will require players to enter a single-use code in order to play online. People who buy their games used will likely have to purchase a code separately to get online. Some say it's bad news but fair play, as Sony is only asking for players to directly contribute to paying for their servers if they plan on using them. Others are against this idea on principle, while still others are just mad that they may have to pay to play used PS3 games online at all. It will be interesting to see how this situation affects Uncharted 3's sales, if at all.
Even more interesting to me is that some gamers are willing to prioritize the way they are treated by publishers -- and exactly how much their videogames cost -- over their own enjoyment of videogames. If you care more about saving $10 than you do about playing an awesome game, what does that say about how much you love videogames in general? If you're going to let a few bucks come between a you and a game you want to play, are you really a "gamer"?
Just as someone who loves reading the Twilight books may not necessarily love literature, or just as a Cry for Dawn lover may not truly appreciate the qualities that make comic books a unique art form, not everyone who loves playing videogames is a "gamer." Let's break down exactly what kinds of gamers are out there, and how they differ from true fans of the medium.
First, let's define what a "gamer" really is. To do that, we'll need to take a look at what makes videogames different from other forms of art and communication. That's a tough one, as in many ways, videogames are the culmination of every attempt at communication that human beings have created. Film, sequential art, animation, music, acting, drawing/painting, sports design, graphic design, photography, amusement park rides, and installation art are just a handful of the different styles that make up videogames. That's a big part of why I've always said that videogames are the greatest art form known to man. Games can literally do everything that other art forms can do and more, without any restrictions. You can be telling a linear story one minute, then go into sequential art mode, then into exploitative installation art, and so forth.
That said, videogames are more than just an amalgamation of all other art forms. What makes them truly special is how we, the players, connect with the events that occur in the game. The place where the sound and visuals (representing the reality of the in-game world) meet the "real" world (the player, interacting with the game world via the given input method) -- that's what makes videogames special. For me, it's the place where controls, pacing, visuals, and audio come together.
That's why I think Nintendogs is one of the most unfairly maligned, brilliantly designed games of this generation. As shallow and simplistic as the game may be in theory, in practice, the place where the player's stylus meets the head of the player's puppy is magic. Breaking the wall between the game world and our world, both physically and emotionally, is the best that a game designer can ever hope to accomplish.
I think we all know that on some level, but we sometimes lose sight of that vision. That perspective can be easily clouded by some of the more surface-level aspects of gaming. Let's run down some of those aspects, shall we?
Graphics and sound
This one is sort of a given. In any medium, fans are bound to lose track of the substance and get caught up in the style. People are more likely to see a movie that features actors who meet society's current standard of beauty. They are more likely to enjoy a song if that song is played in a way that meets their particular ideal of how instruments should be played. They are more likely to be immediately impressed with a "realistic" painting than an abstract painting, and so forth.
That said, it's not always shallow to appreciate these elements. They can be deep experiences in their own right, as Child of Eden and El Shaddai have proven just this year. Indeed, graphics and sound are a major part of what make some games fun, but they are neither all that unique to gaming nor are they particularly important to the game experience when taken on their own. It's where they join with all the other pieces that counts. When people say they refuse to try a game because of how it looks or sounds, or they only play a game because of its visuals, then I think it's fair to question how much they appreciate gaming as a medium.
Writing and story
Take everything I just said about graphics and sound then double it for writing and story. Gaming has come a long way towards becoming a valid form of storytelling, but the capacity for linear narrative is far from the best thing that gaming has to offer. Part of that is because stories, in general, just aren't that special.
Every game tells a story, from Tetris to Mass Effect. In the case of those two games, I'd argue that the further you get from a story based purely on gameplay ("I started off with a a blank slate, but because I got greedy and stacked my pieces in a way to maximize potential for high score profit, I ended up losing the game") and the closer you get to a linear, acted, scripted narrative ("Shepard told the lady that he wanted to have sex with her because that's the part of the script I chose to play out"), the further away you get from what makes videogames special. Telling your own unique stories, and getting to know yourself in the process, is something that only videogames (and maybe installation art) can do. Watching actors play pretend? That's not all that special.
That's really a topic for another time, though. For now, I'll just say that when someone tells me that scripted narrative and/or characterization are the first things they look for in a new videogame, I have trouble relating with them and struggle to see specifically what they like about videogames.
Escapism and fantasy
Here's the aspect of gaming that most people in the "mainstream" assume that the art form is really all about. It's arguably the reason why gaming is still considered "nerdy" to many and why so many people still seek to distance themselves from gamer culture in general. People look down on escapists -- they are assumed to be weak for their desire to run from their lives. Gaming inarguably provides the most potentially engaging and engrossing form of escapism out of any form of human communication. Of course, many of us don't play games to escape, but rather to engage with the mind of the developer through their creation. Regardless, it can be argued that a well-designed game causes you to exit our world and enter the game's world. Escapism is an inevitable part of the gaming equation.
That said, if you only play videogames to escape from your life, chances are that when a newer, more all-encompassing art form comes along, you'll drop gaming like a bad habit. I'm talking about the people who used to love games like like Super Mario Bros. 3 and Mega Man X but will now only play games like Skyrim and Grand Theft Auto. Chances are that if their interests are limited to only the games that provide the most convincing worlds to escape into, then game design isn't one of their top priorities.
Tech and gimmicks
On the other side of the coin, we have the tech-and-gimmicks crowd. These are the folks who don't care that much about escaping into another world. They care more about bragging about having a novel experience or a high-tech rig to up their rep (in their own minds) in the real world. There may be some overlap here with the graphics-and-sound gang, but at heart, they are two separate groups. Those who prioritize graphics over all other aspects of gaming may go for all kinds of visual styles, from Mega Man 9 to Child of Eden to Uncharted 3. Tech-focused gamers only want games that look the tech-iest, as they feel like totally novel tech masters by association.
Likewise, gimmick gamers will value games that are the most different from everything else. It's a similar way of thinking as the tech-focused gamer, except instead of valuing processing power and megapixels, the emphasis is put on how special a game is. These types include the folks who bought a Wii, Kinect, or PlayStation Move just because motion controls were a new experience (then never used them again after the first month) and people who only play videogames that have "offbeat" themes and ideas (regardless of how well or poorly they are implemented). If you're the kind of person who was only interested in playing Braid, Limbo, or Flower when you found out they were about... whatever those games are supposed to be about, and you started to like those games less once everyone else started liking them because they were "no longer special once they got popular," then you just might be a gimmick gamer.
Ownership and prestige
An ever-increasing population of gamers plays videogames for a sense of ownership of their consoles/games, to gain a kind of of pseudo-achievement from their collection of games and/or their achievements as gamers. This is the type of gamer who collects games that they never actually intend to play or who plays games that they don't even enjoy just to score some "easy cheevos." Then there are the highly competitive players who don't enjoy playing a game unless they win. For these guys, it's not about the journey but about the destination, and that destination must include being the very best (like no one ever was). If you find that you've stopped enjoying a game but are still playing it -- that the game is playing you instead of you playing it (that you need to win just one more match, catch one more Pokemon, etc.) -- chances are that you have prestige gamer tendencies.
This competitive focus can carry over into gamers' relationships with their modded consoles/PCs as well. Some gamers hack and mod their consoles in the same way passionate car owners may trick out their cars with custom hydraulics and rims. I have a lot of respect for those with the passion and ingenuity to hack their consoles/PCs in this way (meaning: please don't hack me, Anonymous/LulzSec), but I'm not sure how much they always care about the videogames themselves.
Scared and/or lazy
These are people who really don't like videogames that much. They don't get much from the story, the graphics, the escapism, the tech, or the sense of accomplishment that comes from being a gamer. They don't really value their time with the games they play or their time with much else. They just play videogames because it's easier than their alternatives. They play some Call of Duty or WoW all day, call a few strangers some bad names online, watch some porn, then go to bed. It's not that fun, but it's easier (physically and emotionally) than going out in the world and trying to make friends, learning how to play a musical instrument, dating a boy/girl, writing a blog, walking around the park, etc.
These are the few gamers I would actually advise to stop playing videogames, at least for a little while. As soon as I hear them say, "I wasn't even having fun anymore. I just kept playing because it was the path of least resistance," that's when I tell them I think they have a problem.
Oh, and about that online pass thing...
So what kind of gamer is the most likely to be ticked off about this whole Uncharted 3 online pass nonsense? To me, it's sort of a catch-22. If you really want to play the game online, then it doesn't make that much sense to be upset, because you'll likely be buying the game new anyway. If you don't really want to play the game, online or offline, then it doesn't really make sense to get mad at Sony for asking that you do the code thing, because you never really cared about the game in the first place.
Maybe you do really want to play the game online, but you're just really poor. If that's the case, then why are your using your valuable time playing yet another game online for God knows how many hours on the most expensive home console on the market today? I'll leave it up to you to draw whatever conclusions you will about that scenario, as well as what kind of gamer we're talking about here.
Or maybe you don't really care about Uncharted, but you're upset on principle that Sony would try to pull something like this. Maybe the facts -- that game development costs have never been more expensive, that servers have never been more costly to maintain and protect from piracy, and that the market has never been more competitive -- mean nothing to you. I can't blame you for that, because it's not your job to care about the profit margins of game publishers. That said, if you really wanted to play Uncharted 3 online, and have the money to buy the game new and/or used with code, but are refusing to do so on grumpy principle, then I have to question how you're dealing with your anger and resentment.
Is shortchanging yourself out of an experience that you both want and can afford really worth it to you, just so you can attempt to express your projected rage towards a disembodied father figure like Sony? If so, that's weird to me. Now, if you aren't all that interested in Uncharted 3's multiplayer, and you'd like to send the message to Sony that you think online passes are a bad idea, then by all means, abstain from picking up the game new and grab it used on the cheap later (I know I will). You can buy whatever you want, but you don't have to throw a fit about it, ya dingus!
So what the hell am I talking about?
I know this post has been even longer than usual, but I felt a need to try to include each and every type of gamer possible in order get the idea across to as many people as I could. Even still, I left out gamers who play games because it's part of their job; because their older brothers told them they were "too young to play videogames with the big boys," so now they have a chip on their shoulder; because they think being a gamer makes them look "cool"; because they are dealing with an injury or a major life circumstance, and gaming is very therapeutic for them; or other reasons why someone may pick up gaming other than a love of what makes gaming unique. I tried to be as inclusive as I could, but I'm sure I missed plenty.
Why did I feel the need to be so inclusive? Well, there are a lot of reasons, but one of the big ones is my hope that this article helped you to go through the same kind of identity crisis that I had in this week's video, if even just for a second. I know it's painful and scary to question the terms of your self-perceived identity, but it's necessary if you're going to find out who you really are.
Twist ending time! No, you are not a gamer. None of us are. We should not tolerate being that easily branded. We should not tolerate being categorized, especially in the ways that I just tried to categorize all of you. We are not "gamers." We are people who like many different games for many different reasons, and we should never be categorized, either by someone else or by ourselves. There are way too many gamers who declare at some point that they only play games for the story, on a specific console, in the arcade, or based on some other arbitrary standard (see last week's episode). That kind of thinking only limits our potential to get to know ourselves and the games we may potentially enjoy.
Life is too short for that. We can't think that way. No, we are not gamers. We are all just human beings, biding our time before we die, trying to make the most of the opportunities we have with the time and energy we have available to us. Some of us just don't have the emotional energy at the moment to do more with videogames than play them for the escapism, for the pride, or for the fact that the rest of life is just too damn hard to deal with sometimes. Others (like myself) choose to expend loads of time and energy analyzing games and the people who play them in order to make the pursuit of gaming emotionally rewarding, thought-provoking, and productive. Maybe that's just another form of escapism. Maybe that's just another way to seek pride and accomplishment. It's not really for me to say.
In the end, I will say that there is no measurable difference between people who play games for various reasons at various points in their life. If there is a difference, it's certainly not one that can be condensed and generalized in a term like "gamer" or "game-not-er." We're all just people who, like the accordion player in today's video says, like to put our "fingers on the thing, and it's fun." It doesn't matter if you only like FarmVille, Tetris, Wii Sports, Call of Duty, or Madden, if you hate online passes, or if you don't care about them at all. We're all just putting our fingers on the thing and trying to have fun.
Everything else is just labels and details, which for the most part, only work to inspire elitism, discrimination, and miscommunication. Those are the prime sources of conflict and hostility in the world. The less of that we have in the world of gaming, the better.
Jonathan Holmes is the most lovable Associate Editor on Destructoid. Catch him on videos, original editorials, and on back episodes of the Destructoid Show and MTV's Road Rules. Jonathan is a retro gamer's gamer.
Likes
Mega Man 2, Resident Evil, Katamari Damacy, Bit.Trip, Metal Slug 3
Meet the rest of the team
I've said it a billion times and I will say it again. I will not, ever, buy a game new if it has any sort of online pass. I will cancel my pre-order if I had one (I did for Uncharted 3) and I will either rent the game or buy it used and ignore the multiplayer.
Publishers are lying through their teeth and online passes are nothing buy giant scams. In order for you to have purchased a game used, someone had to of bought it new. That means that whoever purchased it new has already paid for that server/multiplayer space. When you then buy the game used, you are also buying the server/multipayer space that the original owner already paid for.
Publishers are using servers as an excuse to charge you money. I can not think of another industry on the face of this planet that bitches and cries as much as video game publishers to about used sales. Used business has been around as long as business itself. Everything from cars to iPod Touches can and often are purchased used.
Video game companies are the only ones who demand to profit off of the same game multiple times, even though it is no longer their property and they have no legal right to ask you to pay for content that was already paid for. I am going to be frank here, and any haters who want to hate will out themselves as complete morons willing to bend over and spread their cheeks to let game publishers stick their hands up their asses and steal their money.
Frankly, if you buy a online pass, for any reason, you are a complete fucking morons who deserves to have his money stolen. If you honestly, truly think that used games hurt this industry in any way, you are beyond help and might as well switch your brain off for good. It is already in the "Complete Moron" position, you might as well go all the way.
For me, there are Gamers and people who play videogames. Gamers read websites and magazines, know about the industry and understand all the memes. People who videogames are people (duh) who only find out about games by what's on TV or the dashboard. They're the sort who play whatever the game du jour is and move from genre to another at the drop of a hat.
That's not say to say the 2 can't mix or coexist. I think we're prone to going with the crowd and doing whatever everyone else is, but Gamers moreso than others.
Unrelated, you missed an e when you wrote "you'r".
You're saying that a person isn't a real gamer if they don't bend over and take it from video game companies? I'm not sure I agree with that if that is what you're saying. I admit, there is some whining about pricing that people spout a lot, myself included, but refusing to support a facet of the game industry that you disagree with is your way of helping to improve the game industry. I don't like online passes, day 1 DLC, and charging 60 dollars for every piece of crap that game developers ship out, so I hope I will hope improve things by not supporting that (although I'm probably trying in vain.)
People like to be branded, there are different social groups and for a reason. I am a GAMER. I have always been proud to be and will always be one. If you can't pick a gamer out of a crowd, then you're not a TRUE gamer. Simple as that
@EKG
I've never bought a game with an online pass but that's a coincidence. It's sucky for consumers but I don't think I'm a "a complete fucking moron" for wanting to actually use all the features the game has. Hell, it only affects people who buy preowned and really, if you wait longer than a year to play multiplayer you're doing it wrong for most games.
Amen. It is principle. And it doesn't mean that we don't care about the game, it means we care about the whiny attitude of entitlement that the game publishers are increasingly having. It is a valid political and consumer stance to not buy something that is produced by an organization who's practices you don't agree with.
I totally agree with you about the online pass thing. It's just not something that affects me very much. I buy games new because it's usually cheaper that way, as long as I have some patience. It might mean a bit lower trade-in value, but I haven't seen it yet. Even if I were a used gamer, I still wouldn't be upset, because the developer owes me nothing.
Ultimately, I like videogames too much to get outraged over something designed to impact GameStop more than anyone else. It's just not that big a deal for me. In fact, if it means a bit more money going to game development than to GameStop's coffers, then I'm fine with it.
The only part of the article that bothered me was your continued insistence that people who like the story-telling aspect of videogames are doing it wrong. I don't understand that. People like lots of different things for lots of different reasons, and story-telling is one of them.
The "twist" is true, as well. Very few people are going to fit any one category; human beings are simply far too complex for that.
"Let's break down exactly what kind of gamers are out there, and how they differ from true fans of the medium."
Man I was about to rage on you when I read this, then I read the rest of the article.;)
Also I like what you're saying about Nintendogs + Cats. It maybe the only successful game to be able to pull out real emotions from people, even though it's just a game. I think that's what Heavy Rain was trying to do but failed, probably cause the characters weren't as lovable.
I was genuinely considering waiting for a price drop, or perhaps the almost inevitable GOTY edition for Uncharted 3. I stand with Jim when I say that it would be a lot better for them to maybe make the pass for something smaller like a map pack with a few maps from Uncharted 2. (See Gears of War 2's Flashback pack) Ultimately, while Uncharted is a mechanically solid action game, it was never was a day-one, must-have franchise for me.
Although now I'm getting a copy on Sony and Subway's dime, so I can't really complain.
I feel like you contradicted yourself here a bit, Holmsey. You conclude that our reasons for gaming don't matter and we're all a big connected community with our love for gaming in common, but your descriptions of the various types of gamers obviously indicate that some are correct and some are incorrect.
In fact, people who are willing to condone the shitty practices of game developers are the real people who don't care about the game industry IMO. when you buy dlc that costs 25 percent of the disc price and is only 108 kb download, but you don't care because YOU WANT IT!!! you are telling game developers that what they are doing is fine, and almost asking them to take it a step further. When they start locking more and more content out of games unless you buy it new with a preorder and games start turning into a series of toll booths where you have to pay seperate amounts of money to access seperate packages of content ON TOP of the 60 dollar price tag, then I guess only rich people will be considered the only ones who "care about video games" because they'll be the only ones playing
Everyone bitching about online passes. Easy tip, don't buy the game. Yay problem solved.
But a point. If you honestly stop and think for a second (albeit a little less money to pay) you want to pay a little less money so bad you would rather your money profit GAMESTOP rather than the actual dev/publisher.
Why does a big retail chain that does no more than up the RRP and give bad service and $5 off on used titles deserve your money more? Cause remember not a cent of used goes to the dev/pub just to your store of choice. Why do they deserve all this defence? The guys I buy from new charge $30 less (this is AUS) on the NEW price compared to EB(gamestops) used price. Oh but I better not support the dev and not buy it new because I AM A FUCK HEAD....seriously. Gamestop deserve no extra money (to that degree) for the games they didn't make. Disagree? You are a bigger moron corporate sheep than anybody. Because you're getting done by an overcharging retail chain. Instead of the guys who made it hehe...always made me laugh people do so hard to avoid the corporate anal rape they will turn their back to another big membered corporate body anyhow. Well you just keep on keeping hipsters, the corporate machine will never get one over you loooooool
Gonna need a break on this one. I don't feel bad for publishers over rising costs when A) the industry is worth $60 billion a year and rising, and B) those rising costs are the side effect of big publishing's obsession with the AAA game model, and have nothing to do with the gamer. When your business model is "go big or go home", you go big and hope you hit that homerun because anything less is a money loss venture.
How about spending $100 million on advertising a single game? Is that part of those rising costs? How about Sony and MSoft sinking hundreds of millions trying to turn my gaming machine into a voltron of social networks, is that part too?
I'm as gamer as gamer gets, whatever the fuck it means to say that. I am [b]not[/i], however, part of the cult of gaming. I dont do myself a disservice when I "deprive" myself of precious precious gaming when I refuse to sacrifice for sweet Mother Gaming, I simply move on to other great experiences that don't seek to subsidize their own existence.
don't fall into the trap of thinking that everyone who buys used is supporting gamestop. There are PLENTY of better ways to get used games, from renting, buying online, trading with people on websites to gametz, and even borrowing a game from a friend are all considered part of the "used games menace" that companies are trying to eradicate altogether.
I'm also partial to thinking that if Gamestop really was so damaging to game developers, then game developers should stop giving exclusive preorder incentives to gamestop. If they obviously condone gamestop, then they shouldn't have any problems with me condoning gamestop.
Ya know what... I don't usually get dragged down into this kind of thing but to you guys that are name calling and getting hostile at anyone that buys games with online passes? Fuck you. No really, fuck you. It's my money and I'll buy whatever the fuck I like with it and if that's a problem for you, eat a bag of dicks.
Tell you what, you stomp and scream, and I'll be over here playing videogames while not paying any more than I do now. I don't know what to tell you. You make it sound like the world is ending, but it's not. I'm not being shafted in any way, shape, or form. The only online pass game I've traded in so far is Dead Space 2, but I got $40 for it--and that's after paying $40 for it new.
As for everything else, it's capitalism. The only real rule is that production cannot charge more than the market will bear, and I don't that applies in this case.
Truthfully, most developers just wanted safeguards similar to what the film industry has, but GameStop is never going to agree to that, and all the various publishers are never going to work together closely enough that a boycott of GameStop would be realistic.
Online passes: Inconvenient? Yes. But then again so are CD keys with over 9000 characters in them that not only are required to install the game, but often to use the... online... services...
I agree with everything EKGProd, OneRed and llort het said. Especially llort.
The way I see it, greedy publishers are going to cause another video game crash if they keep up with what they're doing. They're taking advantage of gamers in small, incremental steps because they know even the the most weak-willed gamer will flat-out refuse to accept a total draconian hold on their games. But if they add the BS in small steps it doesn't seem like such a big deal to many current gamers and it shows publishers how much they can get away with.
Current gamers have already set the precedent for being weak-willed enough to accept almost anything in small steps, as long as they get their games, like a drug addict needing his next hit. So the game companies are just going to keep adding more and more hoops to jump through. Next thing you know, you'll be having to swipe your credit card just to turn on your console.
Then once there are too many hoops for even the most dudebro or casual gamer to ignore, then the situation will boil over and gamers will get sick of it possibly lead to a second game crash.
To further elaborate, PC games haven't ever had a used games market. It's just not there. Partly because there were always ways of keeping the game even without the physical media and then system requirements. It just becomes a headache without original packaging or instructions.
Further, that a publisher would charge $10 bucks to allow you to use their service with a copy of their game that they don't actually KNOW that you bought isn't that far-fetched.
Sony has no fucking clue that you bought Uncharted 3 from GameStop... hell, it could have been GameFly or Best Buy or numerous other outlets. But fact is one game license is being used by multiple people and to them, that's not what the original purchaser agreed to. So instead of yelling at people to "BUY THE FULL GAME NOW! ONLY $49.99!" while simultaneously blocking them from online service for an invalid key, they say "Look, $10... we look the other way."
Seems a bit less rigid than the way PC games have worked for years if you asked me...
I'm against online passes because it hurts developers. It creates two kinds of consumers: The devoted who play the game more than the average gamer and make up the online community, and everyone else who is a bit skeptical about the game quality, and is not sure about the online stuff, so just opts to skip out on it. The customers that need to be convinced, the ones that would grow the community, are turned away. The online community is now an inbred fanbase, and the rest of the gaming community doesn't bat an eye.
Saying "its capitalism" is like looking at a fire and saying "its fire". Its a meaningless statement, like "the market will adjust".
Show me these safeguards the film industry has against the used market. While you're at it, show me any proof that Gamestop does any harm to the industry at all. I mean, what evidence at all do you have that publishers (not developers, they're paid either way with bonuses if the game ends up meeting certain criteria) lose money thanks to Gamestop.
I agree entirely with EKGProd. Way to speak it! Well, actually, I don't agree with calling people a "fucking moron", but I'll digress...
I find it interesting how everyone points out that this'll harm gamestop in some manner. They forget that other services like Destructoid's own shop is affected by this since they too allow you to sell games back. Gamestop provides a service, just as many others do the same and want to profit a bit. Without that credit or extra dosh, those gamers won't get to enjoy an old game or relatively new one for a bit cheaper. I don't see anything wrong with that.
The ones who believe that the online pass will go towards more developers is fooling themselves, since developers rarely get any bonus money from more copies sold and extra funds like this. Most if not all of this money goes into the pocket of the publishers and who they feel deserves it most(their CEOs). More than likely, this extra funds will go towards advertising their next game they plan to sell, and not development costs despite how out of control they are.
I disagree about the labeling in general about gamers and this "true-gamer" thing. People will game on whatever the hell they want, and will play games for whatever they seek in a game. Some like story, some like violence, some simply like a challenging or they want to kill time.
I personally still don't consider Nintendogs to be a game. However, people are free to disagree with me and treat it as such just as most people do. Games don't need to fall under certain critera to be called a game. They can be lacking many of those attributes and still qualify as one. Gamers are the same thing.
I remember hearing before from a fellow Dtoider that devs get paid for their work after the completion of the game (or after certian criteria like OneRed mentioned). If that's true, then publishers have fed some people some nice propaganda.
Sounds like the situation plays out like this: gamers are trying to support their favorite devs, meanwhile the devs already got their money and you're just lining the pockets of the greedy publishers instead while they continue to pressure studios to release games before they're ready and patch them later while still charging $60, among other things. Repeat sob story about piracy hurting sales, etc., start process all over again.
That's the problem, right there. Look, I get that this is just the comment section of an article on a gaming blog so I'm not going to suggest that people include a bibliography or anything, but I feel like claims such as the one you're making here should have some sort of merit to them if they're being used to support your entire belief system, and they just don't have any such merit. We're all just guessing at it. Look at the guy that posted right above you...
"The ones who believe that the online pass will go towards more developers is fooling themselves, since developers rarely get any bonus money from more copies sold and extra funds like this. Most if not all of this money goes into the pocket of the publishers and who they feel deserves it most(their CEOs)."
This guy has no clue either. He's just guessing. We're all just making this shit up to justify ourselves and it holds no weight whatsoever. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion. I'm not saying you're not entitled to believe whatever you like (unless you're a self-righteous prosthelytizing ass about it) but using made-up facts to support it just isn't going to fly.
I'm usually a big fan of J-Holmes, but not sure I agree with his proclamation that REAL gamers "bend over and let video game companies rape them with shady tactics because after all, it is just a $10 difference." That sounds more like what CASUAL gamers do, because they don't know any better and buy Bionic Commando Rearmed not knowing what DRM is.
It's that sort of attitude that allowed the laughable concept of horse armor to evolve into the $15 map packs and on-disc costume DLC we see today.
Well, if you can explain why publishers need the money from online passes, locked-out-on-disc DLC and other schemes when the industry is making more money than ever before, I'd like to hear it. I mean, it just sounds like greed to me.
Plus, I never said that my theory was factual. It's just my theory on why this is happening, and JayCee's post seems to reflect it.
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
4:00 PM on 10.11.2011 | 
Publishers are lying through their teeth and online passes are nothing buy giant scams. In order for you to have purchased a game used, someone had to of bought it new. That means that whoever purchased it new has already paid for that server/multiplayer space. When you then buy the game used, you are also buying the server/multipayer space that the original owner already paid for.
Publishers are using servers as an excuse to charge you money. I can not think of another industry on the face of this planet that bitches and cries as much as video game publishers to about used sales. Used business has been around as long as business itself. Everything from cars to iPod Touches can and often are purchased used.
Video game companies are the only ones who demand to profit off of the same game multiple times, even though it is no longer their property and they have no legal right to ask you to pay for content that was already paid for. I am going to be frank here, and any haters who want to hate will out themselves as complete morons willing to bend over and spread their cheeks to let game publishers stick their hands up their asses and steal their money.
Frankly, if you buy a online pass, for any reason, you are a complete fucking morons who deserves to have his money stolen. If you honestly, truly think that used games hurt this industry in any way, you are beyond help and might as well switch your brain off for good. It is already in the "Complete Moron" position, you might as well go all the way.
That's not say to say the 2 can't mix or coexist. I think we're prone to going with the crowd and doing whatever everyone else is, but Gamers moreso than others.
Unrelated, you missed an e when you wrote "you'r".
I've never bought a game with an online pass but that's a coincidence. It's sucky for consumers but I don't think I'm a "a complete fucking moron" for wanting to actually use all the features the game has. Hell, it only affects people who buy preowned and really, if you wait longer than a year to play multiplayer you're doing it wrong for most games.
Amen. It is principle. And it doesn't mean that we don't care about the game, it means we care about the whiny attitude of entitlement that the game publishers are increasingly having. It is a valid political and consumer stance to not buy something that is produced by an organization who's practices you don't agree with.
*scrolls back u-*
...
HOLY CRAP!
I miss Sundays with Sagat. Hell, Breakfast with Birdie was much better at making fun of idiots.
I don't actually give a fuck about online codes because I don't own any consoles that have ever used them.
Ultimately, I like videogames too much to get outraged over something designed to impact GameStop more than anyone else. It's just not that big a deal for me. In fact, if it means a bit more money going to game development than to GameStop's coffers, then I'm fine with it.
The only part of the article that bothered me was your continued insistence that people who like the story-telling aspect of videogames are doing it wrong. I don't understand that. People like lots of different things for lots of different reasons, and story-telling is one of them.
The "twist" is true, as well. Very few people are going to fit any one category; human beings are simply far too complex for that.
Great job again Jonathan!
Man I was about to rage on you when I read this, then I read the rest of the article.;)
Also I like what you're saying about Nintendogs + Cats. It maybe the only successful game to be able to pull out real emotions from people, even though it's just a game. I think that's what Heavy Rain was trying to do but failed, probably cause the characters weren't as lovable.
Although now I'm getting a copy on Sony and Subway's dime, so I can't really complain.
But a point. If you honestly stop and think for a second (albeit a little less money to pay) you want to pay a little less money so bad you would rather your money profit GAMESTOP rather than the actual dev/publisher.
Why does a big retail chain that does no more than up the RRP and give bad service and $5 off on used titles deserve your money more? Cause remember not a cent of used goes to the dev/pub just to your store of choice. Why do they deserve all this defence? The guys I buy from new charge $30 less (this is AUS) on the NEW price compared to EB(gamestops) used price. Oh but I better not support the dev and not buy it new because I AM A FUCK HEAD....seriously. Gamestop deserve no extra money (to that degree) for the games they didn't make. Disagree? You are a bigger moron corporate sheep than anybody. Because you're getting done by an overcharging retail chain. Instead of the guys who made it hehe...always made me laugh people do so hard to avoid the corporate anal rape they will turn their back to another big membered corporate body anyhow. Well you just keep on keeping hipsters, the corporate machine will never get one over you loooooool
How about spending $100 million on advertising a single game? Is that part of those rising costs? How about Sony and MSoft sinking hundreds of millions trying to turn my gaming machine into a voltron of social networks, is that part too?
I'm as gamer as gamer gets, whatever the fuck it means to say that. I am [b]not[/i], however, part of the cult of gaming. I dont do myself a disservice when I "deprive" myself of precious precious gaming when I refuse to sacrifice for sweet Mother Gaming, I simply move on to other great experiences that don't seek to subsidize their own existence.
don't fall into the trap of thinking that everyone who buys used is supporting gamestop. There are PLENTY of better ways to get used games, from renting, buying online, trading with people on websites to gametz, and even borrowing a game from a friend are all considered part of the "used games menace" that companies are trying to eradicate altogether.
I'm also partial to thinking that if Gamestop really was so damaging to game developers, then game developers should stop giving exclusive preorder incentives to gamestop. If they obviously condone gamestop, then they shouldn't have any problems with me condoning gamestop.
Uncharted 3 day one purchase. U mad?
Tell you what, you stomp and scream, and I'll be over here playing videogames while not paying any more than I do now. I don't know what to tell you. You make it sound like the world is ending, but it's not. I'm not being shafted in any way, shape, or form. The only online pass game I've traded in so far is Dead Space 2, but I got $40 for it--and that's after paying $40 for it new.
As for everything else, it's capitalism. The only real rule is that production cannot charge more than the market will bear, and I don't that applies in this case.
Truthfully, most developers just wanted safeguards similar to what the film industry has, but GameStop is never going to agree to that, and all the various publishers are never going to work together closely enough that a boycott of GameStop would be realistic.
Holmes endorses real life marriage to video game characters (a la Love plus). News at 11!! (I keed...maybe).
OH FUCK! THIS ISN'T NEW!
The way I see it, greedy publishers are going to cause another video game crash if they keep up with what they're doing. They're taking advantage of gamers in small, incremental steps because they know even the the most weak-willed gamer will flat-out refuse to accept a total draconian hold on their games. But if they add the BS in small steps it doesn't seem like such a big deal to many current gamers and it shows publishers how much they can get away with.
Current gamers have already set the precedent for being weak-willed enough to accept almost anything in small steps, as long as they get their games, like a drug addict needing his next hit. So the game companies are just going to keep adding more and more hoops to jump through. Next thing you know, you'll be having to swipe your credit card just to turn on your console.
Then once there are too many hoops for even the most dudebro or casual gamer to ignore, then the situation will boil over and gamers will get sick of it possibly lead to a second game crash.
Further, that a publisher would charge $10 bucks to allow you to use their service with a copy of their game that they don't actually KNOW that you bought isn't that far-fetched.
Sony has no fucking clue that you bought Uncharted 3 from GameStop... hell, it could have been GameFly or Best Buy or numerous other outlets. But fact is one game license is being used by multiple people and to them, that's not what the original purchaser agreed to. So instead of yelling at people to "BUY THE FULL GAME NOW! ONLY $49.99!" while simultaneously blocking them from online service for an invalid key, they say "Look, $10... we look the other way."
Seems a bit less rigid than the way PC games have worked for years if you asked me...
Saying "its capitalism" is like looking at a fire and saying "its fire". Its a meaningless statement, like "the market will adjust".
Show me these safeguards the film industry has against the used market. While you're at it, show me any proof that Gamestop does any harm to the industry at all. I mean, what evidence at all do you have that publishers (not developers, they're paid either way with bonuses if the game ends up meeting certain criteria) lose money thanks to Gamestop.
I find it interesting how everyone points out that this'll harm gamestop in some manner. They forget that other services like Destructoid's own shop is affected by this since they too allow you to sell games back. Gamestop provides a service, just as many others do the same and want to profit a bit. Without that credit or extra dosh, those gamers won't get to enjoy an old game or relatively new one for a bit cheaper. I don't see anything wrong with that.
The ones who believe that the online pass will go towards more developers is fooling themselves, since developers rarely get any bonus money from more copies sold and extra funds like this. Most if not all of this money goes into the pocket of the publishers and who they feel deserves it most(their CEOs). More than likely, this extra funds will go towards advertising their next game they plan to sell, and not development costs despite how out of control they are.
I disagree about the labeling in general about gamers and this "true-gamer" thing. People will game on whatever the hell they want, and will play games for whatever they seek in a game. Some like story, some like violence, some simply like a challenging or they want to kill time.
I personally still don't consider Nintendogs to be a game. However, people are free to disagree with me and treat it as such just as most people do. Games don't need to fall under certain critera to be called a game. They can be lacking many of those attributes and still qualify as one. Gamers are the same thing.
Sounds like the situation plays out like this: gamers are trying to support their favorite devs, meanwhile the devs already got their money and you're just lining the pockets of the greedy publishers instead while they continue to pressure studios to release games before they're ready and patch them later while still charging $60, among other things. Repeat sob story about piracy hurting sales, etc., start process all over again.
If not I will either wait for a price drop,buy used,or rent.
To miss out on a game you might enjoy out of protest is just plain dumb.
"I remember hearing before from a fellow Dtoider"
That's the problem, right there. Look, I get that this is just the comment section of an article on a gaming blog so I'm not going to suggest that people include a bibliography or anything, but I feel like claims such as the one you're making here should have some sort of merit to them if they're being used to support your entire belief system, and they just don't have any such merit. We're all just guessing at it. Look at the guy that posted right above you...
"The ones who believe that the online pass will go towards more developers is fooling themselves, since developers rarely get any bonus money from more copies sold and extra funds like this. Most if not all of this money goes into the pocket of the publishers and who they feel deserves it most(their CEOs)."
This guy has no clue either. He's just guessing. We're all just making this shit up to justify ourselves and it holds no weight whatsoever. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion. I'm not saying you're not entitled to believe whatever you like (unless you're a self-righteous prosthelytizing ass about it) but using made-up facts to support it just isn't going to fly.
not sure why but when someone calls me a "gamer" i feel insulted
It's that sort of attitude that allowed the laughable concept of horse armor to evolve into the $15 map packs and on-disc costume DLC we see today.
Well, if you can explain why publishers need the money from online passes, locked-out-on-disc DLC and other schemes when the industry is making more money than ever before, I'd like to hear it. I mean, it just sounds like greed to me.
Plus, I never said that my theory was factual. It's just my theory on why this is happening, and JayCee's post seems to reflect it.
Maybe because calling someone a gamer is as stupid as calling someone a "movier"