MoviePage

I dislike them. Discuss.

Groucho

It's the tip of the iceberg.with the ultimate target the secondary market for games (and, to a lesser extent, piracy).

Jay G.

Technically speaking, the "online pass" for Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning isn't an online pass at all, but day-one DLC that's free for people who buy the game new.

This article illustrates the distinction:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2...used-games.ars
This is similar to the Arkham City Catwoman DLC that came out last year:
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/10/arkham-city-catwoman/


To me, making used game users pay for online multiplayer makes a certain level of sense, since this is an ongoing cost, and used games drive in new users that use these resources without directly compensating the publisher.

For day-one DLC, the justification becomes a bit murkier. The impression gamers get is that this is content that easily could've been included in the actual game, but was stripped out to be used as a "bonus." Of course, the same could be accused of almost all DLC, but for day-one DLC, especially when it's given free with new copies of the game, this feeling is especially pronounced.

fumanstan

I'm fully supportive of benefits to people who buy new games (and thus small hits to used game buyers) to support game developers and publishers, as long as it doesn't get to the point that parts of the game that significantly impact the game or the story aren't affected. I know there are people who like to proclaim "this is just the beginning!!" but I'm not that pessimistic. Worst case, people buying PC games on Steam can't resell them and it hasn't been a death sentence.

I can see why people are mad; consumers just want to pay the least amount possible for their entertainment, whether saving money by buying game used, or recouping money be trading them in. And people see EA and Activision, and billions of dollars from games like Call of Duty, and just assume greed. But when other studios get shut down because a decent game doesn't sell a million copies, it sucks. Sure used games can contribute to word of mouth and future sales, but not every developer gets that opportunity.

Decker

I buy my games new, ususally. I have no problems with added DLC value as a bonus reward for buying a game new. I'd be very against crippling a game so it can't be completed without buying a new copy, but as it is, I don't really have a problem with it. I consider bonus missions just that -- a bonus.

As I mentioned in a previous thread, I DO have a MAJOR problem with those passes that are only included with new copies of a game expiring on some random pre-determined date. If I purchase a new game with the understanding of getting bonus content with that game, I don't want to be on the clock. I think that it's wrong to make that DLC code expire (Dragon Age 2 bonus content redemption code expires 3/31/12, BTW) in the same way that I think it's wrong for codes for digital copies of movies to expire.

Jay G.

I think this is more an indictment of the current costs of video game development than on used games. Used games have existed for forever, and game developers have always had to deal with them. It's the fact that a game can bankrupt a studio if it doesn't sell a million copies that's the problem.

As for Steam, I think part of the benefit is that it has competitors on for digital distribution of content on PC, which provides the opportunities for good sales. For consoles, you can only get content through the console's own market, which means the drive for really good sales isn't as strong.

I would like to hear a good justification for why these codes expire. I can see the studios not wanting to have to support the codes forever, but it seems like the expiration dates are too soon. Maybe allow a 5-year activation span, with the additional disclaimer that the code may become useless earlier if the company actually goes under.

Michael Corvin

We did discuss... in a similar thread back when EA started Project $10. IIRC, I think I was the only one that defended it.

Michael Corvin

[QUOTE=Jay G.;11095109
I would like to hear a good justification for why these codes expire.[/QUOTE]

I'm not familiar with any that expire, but my guess is that it's similar to digital copies that come with movies. It's a bonus for buying while the game is full price and not off the clearance rack.

fumanstan

No doubt. Anyway to recoup costs for the developers and publishers.

Jay G.

Here's that previous thread:
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/video-game-...you-agree.html

Do game publishers still press all their copies upfront? I would assume they could just stop putting the code in new copies after a while.

The problem is if the cure is worse than the disease. If using online codes and DRM to promote new sales drives more customers away than it attracts, then it's not a viable solution.

fujishig

I'd be interested in seeing how many of these games with online capabilities actually have more than a handful of players a few months after launch. Sure, the big titles (COD, Halo, etc.) will be there, but other games?

Decker

Lots of them expire, at least going by the date on the DLC cards. A lot of the time the 360 codes don't actually expire, despite what the date states. The PSN codes usually do, right on the expiration date.

If they want to limit it to early adopters, then only release the bonus with the initial run. Once I buy a game, it's mine. I should be allowed to download the DLC I own whenever I want to. I don't want to feel like I'm still "on the clock" once I've bought the game new.

foxdvd

this is my main problem with online passes...the truth is I have no problem with the way current online passes work for a game like Battlefield 3...I would rather they not have them because I have kids who like to share games, but it does not keep me from buying it. I also don't have a problem with what Rage did...or Batman...

I do think though that this is the first step toward codes for console games. Is that not the nature of business? EA is not putting games out for some artistic reason. They want to make money. I have been grumpy about online passes from the start, and have found myself on the side of "this is the first step" and there is always equally on the other side "you are being paranoid"

Now IGN is saying that the next xbox might have a way to make used games not work. How else do you think they are going to do that? It is going to be a code in your game that you put in and verify so you can play it. Exactly what I was afraid of.

The worst part is I honestly deeply feel it will hurt their profits in the long run....

Steam works because for the most part it is made up of hardcore gamers...people who take the time to put together a gaming pc...they like what steam offers. Console games work to a much BIGGER level because they play to hardcore and mid-level gamers....along with even casual gamers. A game NEEDS to sell a million copies anymore to be profitable on a console..not so on STEAM...STEAM also works because it supplements physical sales. Big games that are released on STEAM may sell a million copies...and another million from stores...and another 5 million on consoles...

The closer consoles come to being PC's...the less reasons people will have to buy one...

fumanstan

I don't think Steam's audience is that reliant on hardcore PC gamers, nor do I really see how entering a code is somehow too complicated for consoles. I don't disagree that moving completely to something like that would lose sales though, however I don't think that the next generation is going to see that kind of system yet.

dsa_shea

The way I see it is that games that don't recoup their costs wouldn't anyways even if the used market didn't exist. The quality titles or big sellers are going to be the ones that have more numbers both new and used to create that cash flow and extra stream from used users paying the online pass fee. Ultimately, I think that all developers are going to have to scale the retail price for the title based on expected demand as well rather than just trying to recoup their investment. Rayman Origins was a title that many gamers were scared of at the original release price point of 60 but raved about once it came down to 30 and even more at 20.

lordwow

In my opinion this is pretty much no different than offering some DLC for pre-ordering. If you want it, buy it new. If you don't, buy the DLC with Microsoft Points or whatever.

Decker

Might I suggest that Movie Page, who started the thread, come back and explain why he feels so strongly about this being a bad thing. None of us are crazy about it, but only Movie Page, as far as I'm aware, actually cancelled a pre-order, on principle because of the Day 1 DLC model. I'd like some more elaborate explanation about why it's so terrible for a for-business company to incentivize the first-time purchasers of their software, especially in light of all the profits places like Game Stop make on the secondary market off the sales of used games that don't benefit the game developer much, if at all.

Groucho

Not necessarily. It could be via writable RFID technology in the disc itself, practically invisible to the end-user.

Jay G.

Game developers/publishers benefit from the used game market, just not directly. Some people who buy new games fund those purchases, at least partially, by selling off their previous games. And people who buy a game used and like it may end up buying ancillary DLC, the GOTY edition of the game new, and any eventual sequels new.

Read these articles for more nuanced details on why the used game market is symbiotic with the new game market, not parasitic:
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2010/08/used-games/
http://dubiousquality.blogspot.com/2...rous-game.html

dsa_shea

Many consumers wouldn't touch many titles out there if there were no used market. We would be stuck with mainstream titles like Call of Duty and fewer innovative but risky titles. In the long run the gamers lose by doing away with a second hand market.

fumanstan

Which is why the "online pass" thing, the topic of the thread, seems like a fair trade off to me. Give people a reason to buy games new, while making a little bit off the used game market while not eliminating it completely. Although I don't like the idea of restricting something like multiplayer entirely like EA is doing with their sports games.

dsa_shea

I don't mind the pass as long as I get one with my new copy. I would much rather this continue than the rumored b.s. of games only working on the original system. Imagine your games or blu rays tied to one or two players and that's it.

foxdvd

deep down I have to believe this will not happen.....I don't see the next xbox doing 10 million units if they really did this...I hope IGN is full of shit...


and I like how moviepage starts this thread with 4 words and leaves...lol..

Decker

I never believed that story for a minute. Why would a company that's primarily interested in selling new hardware come out with an innovation that's anti-consumer, blocks rentals, alienates the very retailers that will be selling the hardware (Best Buy, Wal-Mart, Game Stop) and would put them at a competitive disadvantage against Sony and Nintendo just to please the software publishers? It's a business strategy that makes no sense and multi-billion dollar companies don't use illogical business plans to launch the most important product in their company's history. Maybe Coke did, but otherwise most companies aren't so eager to shoot themselves in the foot.

Did IGN explain why they thought Microsoft might ever consider doing that?

mhg83

If the Rumor turns out to be false I'd really like to find out who IGNs "Source" was.