The Online Pass topic

[MrMoon360]

I don't mind online passes since they come free with the purchase of your new game. They even work for multiple accounts when the Gamertag (Xbox LIVE) was registered with that particular console. At least that's the case with Mass Effect 3.

I don't think the battle is Online passes here people. The real battle is completed data on the game disk that they sell later for DLC. (e.g. Capcom aka Crapcom, Cashcom) That is just a straight up con.
Vote with your wallets on that issue.

Online pass is just a little security for the company that I totally understand. Think about if it were your game. You'd want to get a little compensation if someone got a bargain off your game, right? Ten dollars ain't much in my book, especially if I turn out getting the game used for $29.99.
Although I could do without online passes, they're considerably reasonable to me. Its a bit of a nuisance if you borrow games with online features that require this for online play.

But we're all fans here, so we'll be getting the game new not a second later than launch.

 

[DForev]

To be fair, I've had a few times where I've needed to re-enter my Online Pass with FIFA. That's mostly because EA tends to be crap online, but it has happened where the game ask for my online pass again when I go to play multiplayer. I always keep stuff in the game case anyway, so no big deal, but potentially annoying. I imagine if I lost the pass, I'd at least have to wait a while before being able to play online again. And I always brace myself just in case the pass doesn't work (being that passes are supposed to be a one off thing) whenever I have to re-enter it. At minimum, don't throw the pass away.

Overall, I don't care about online passes, but they aren't perfect. If I want an anticipated game and it has one, I get it regardless. If I don't particularly care, I'd wait for the game to get cheap anyway. If it doesn't (or a lot of time passes), but has online pass to discourage used purchase, I just don't get the game. And perhaps any other game in that series.

 

[PopRock123]

I don't love or hate online passes, but I can see why people hate them.

 

[synce]

Regarding online passes being used for multiple accounts on same Xbox, I've heard it's impossible on certain games. Not sure about Tecmo's own NG3, it's one of those games I didn't buy. Also anyone who bought a 360 in the first few years has probably went through several by now, so there's that too.

I've heard the argument that people today feel entitled, but I've been gaming long before today and I've never turned to piracy until this generation. It's not so much the cost it's the fact that the publishers are splitting fanbases and releasing games in tiny DRM'd chunks rather than a complete package.

 

[CyberEvil]

Whether you feel justified stealing or not, it's still stealing. It blows my mind that people, not specifically you synce, but just in general have somehow decided that because it's possible to steal something with a low likelihood of getting prosecuted for it, it's alright. The Six Strikes policies that the major ISPs have all agreed to should prove to be fairly interesting soon.

Logically, this is all very simple. If we want to see more games and content from Team NINJA/TecmoKoei, we should buy their shit. If we're gonna be cheap or want to use more than one profile, we should be OK with the fact that paying extra for an online pass is gonna happen. I'm not a fan of generalizing because there are always situations that test sweeping statements like that, but come on...

 

[FakeSypha]

I don't approve of "online passes", even if I don't usually buy used games. I don't like the idea and "spirit" behind it.

 

[CyberEvil]

Companies trying to not lose money when someone saves $5 by buying used? I think the "spirit" is being determined for them, in most cases.

 

[Forlorn Penguin]

I don't mind at all if DOA5 has an online pass. I completely understand the practice. It won't phase me anyway since I'm buying the game new at launch. If Ninja Gaiden 3 apparently had one, it's safe to assume that DOA5 will have one especially since it's actually a multiplayer game.

grap3 probably won't be the game new.

Of course he will. Otherwise he'd have to wait longer to let us know how bad it is.

Whether you feel justified stealing or not, it's still stealing. It blows my mind that people, not specifically you synce, but just in general have somehow decided that because it's possible to steal something with a low likelihood of getting prosecuted for it, it's alright. The Six Strikes policies that the major ISPs have all agreed to should prove to be fairly interesting soon.

I never pirate anything, myself. Even though I could very easily download music illegally, or strip the audio from a song that's been posted on YouTube, I always still buy the actual album and rip it to my PC. If I'm a fan of a particular artist, I don't think it's right to rob them.

 

[CyberEvil]

That's pretty much my point. There are certainly people and companies out there that deserve bad things happening to them. I just don't see the point in ripping off an artist, developer, publisher, author...whoever, when you're a big fan. Since I have the means to show these people and entities that I support them, I do so. If somebody doesn't have the money, they should probably bust their ass doing odd jobs or talking to friends to loan them some cash.

I'm definitely not talking down to people lacking in funds; been there myself in a big way. But the logic of robbing someone you're a fan of completely escapes me. Complaining about something that a company a good majority of us here are fans of did to try and recoup money that was denied to them through the used market isn't wholly dissimilar from defending piracy in the first place when thought about in broad strokes. They're losing money on used sales so they're doing this to try and get some of that back. I'd flip out if they asked us to pay for an online pass in brand new copies...but I'd still pay it anyway. Read my comments about software companies and licenses for the reasoning.

 

[Forlorn Penguin]

That's pretty much my point. There are certainly people and companies out there that deserve bad things happening to them. I just don't see the point in ripping off an artist, developer, publisher, author...whoever, when you're a big fan. Since I have the means to show these people and entities that I support them, I do so. If somebody doesn't have the money, they should probably bust their ass doing odd jobs or talking to friends to loan them some cash.

I'm definitely not talking down to people lacking in funds; been there myself in a big way. But the logic of robbing someone you're a fan of completely escapes me. Complaining about something that a company a good majority of us here are fans of did to try and recoup money that was denied to them through the used market isn't wholly dissimilar from defending piracy in the first place when thought about in broad strokes. They're losing money on used sales so they're doing this to try and get some of that back.

Yup. Exactly. TN is getting my money for sure. I'm even buying the CE too.

I'd flip out if they asked us to pay for an online pass in brand new copies...but I'd still pay it anyway.

Yeah, that would be pretty ridiculous. Just like you though, I'd still buy it.

 

[SilverForte]

I understand the reasoning behind online passes, I'm not a fan of em, but I can see why they are being used. I mainly buy used, typically a while after the game has been out, I try to get the best deals. If the game happens to be new then that's good. Games around here are expensive to begin with, around 75$ for a new copy.

 

[matsu]

Honestly i am a long time player and i've spend a lot of money.I've bought many games of different franchises,many consoles(some more than one).I thought about it many times.Are we simply spoiled brats able to communicate their disappointment?Well maybe...

Thanks to internet we're able to be vocal,sometime for good sometime for the worst. All those new concepts are good on the paper,but in reality there's a huge difference.DLC are not what they were supposed to be and everyone knows it.And unfortunately i had too many evidence from companies that they love to milk us.Latest example is the ambassador BS of Nintendo.The 3DS case.

I bought it before they lowered the price.You can tell me i am a morron for buying it day one,and i'd agree.But the only reason behind the price was the hype generated by those wonderfull journalists at E3 or TGS(i don't remember which was the event where they announced it );NIIIIIICE.Let's give it a really expansive price,because the hypeness will blind them....Are you serious?I have enough to be a Beta tester for new hardware and software.

Video game and internet culture became the same shit as 7th art,because they understood that there's a lot of money to make.Look at the media today ,they said internet was garbage culture but now they shamelessly use its mechanism.(same thing could be said about the "sub-culture" of video game huh...)It's not that much to pay 10 bucks an online pass,it's not that much to suscribe Xboxlive,it's not that much to pay for dlc,it's not that much to pay UMVC3 40 bucks with more content than the first one i paid 60,it's not that much to buy an Hd tv,wait wait my wallet is empty.......Good job.

I am not only complaining about money but there's a real moral problem in this Gen.Video game industry is in a transition as many old school gamers,they'll have to choose between staying a teenager or becoming adult and responsible.That's what this gen is.And there are many evidences of it.

PS:forgive me for my average english.

Edit:About piracy and all,people who pirate products are oftenly the first customers....

Cyber Evil said:

but just in general have somehow decided that because it's possible to steal something with a low likelihood of getting prosecuted for it, it's alright

Same thing could be said about Companies with DRM DLC Online pass and disc locked content.

 

[Riizch]

I'm not really a fan of the online pass idea, but at the same time, I can understand it. Personally though, I'd rather have a license system whereby the second hand retailers had to pay a percentage of the takings from a second hand game to the publishers to account for the lost profits rather than to have the publisher charge the consumer direct through an online pass, even if it meant that the price of second hand games went up a bit.

I personally feel that it is the retailers who are the most morally at fault in this whole process. I mean, they give you a ridiculously low sum for the games you trade in (unless you take them back within, like, a week of release) and then stick it back on the shelves for virtually the same price as the RRP. The publisher loses out on the price of shifting a new copy of the game, the consumer loses out by probably spending the same, if not more, to get a second hand game and then an online pass as well, and the second hand retailer is sat there counting their profits with no penalty. For them, it's more or less a win win situation. They either shift a brand new game and recoup whatever percentage they have agreed with the publishers, or they sell a second hand copy, making a 50-75% profit on what they gave the original owner for it.

I usually always buy my games new (same with CD's and whatever) because I like the thought that I'm supporting the studios and whatnot. Plus, it's nice to feel that I've got a shiny new game, and not somebody else's sloppy seconds. It certainly won't be a problem for me with DOA5.

I guess my major concern with DOA5 likely having an online pass, is that I think it will really restrict the potential audience. Whether we like it or not, DOA doesn't have the reputation or the fan base of a game like street fighter or tekken, and I reckon a large percentage of the people who get the game will look to get it pre owned, and when they see that it requires an online pass as well, they'll just pass up getting the game full stop. They weren't particularly sold on it before, and they certainly won't be later if they have to fork out for an online pass as well. We want this game to see the rise in popularity and sales that it so rightly deserves, and I think an online pass will have a big detrimental impact on that.

With regard to the DLC debate, I'm all for proper expansions and extending the life of a game, but the idea of disk locked content is abhorrent to me. I think it's disgusting that you pay up to £50 for a new game, but you don't actually "own" all of the contents of it until you've forked out a further £50 to unlock it. I find that disgusting. I'll happily keep dipping into my wallet for new characters, costumes, levels or whatever, if it means that they keep on making more and more content for my favourite games, but I'll be damned if I'm made to pay a premium just to unlock something that I've effectively already paid for.

 

[matsu]

I personally feel that it is the retailers who are the most morally at fault in this whole process. I mean, they give you a ridiculously low sum for the games you trade in (unless you take them back within, like, a week of release) and then stick it back on the shelves for virtually the same price as the RRP. The publisher loses out on the price of shifting a new copy of the game, the consumer loses out by probably spending the same, if not more, to get a second hand game and then an online pass as well, and the second hand retailer is sat there counting their profits with no penalty. For them, it's more or less a win win situation. They either shift a brand new game and recoup whatever percentage they have agreed with the publishers, or they sell a second hand copy, making a 50-75% profit on what they gave the original owner for it.

the customer is always guilty

 

[Leifang2000]

If there were online pass, Tekken Tag 2 100% will sell more that of DOA5.

Online pass = big drop in second hand market price
Online pass = cut part of 1st hand market (those who wish to buy it then sell it off later won't buy it as 2nd hand price lowered, their cost becomes higher)
Online pass = Increase 2nd hand market (those who wish to buy it new and sell it later are now at the 2nd hand market to buy it used, then sell it used, because that is the price point which they are at)

So, the game will become less liquid(more difficult to sell off and turn into cash) as a commodity. Only those die-hard fans will buy it first day. Those who just want to try it out and sell it or get rid of the game just become harder to sell it at a good price. As how much the online pass will determine how high or low the 2nd hand price will be. That portion of costumers might wait for a price drop.

All in all, I think online pass is not good for both the customers, the game company and retailer. Speaking of retailer, they are less likely to have more stock in store too as the game becomes harder to sell compare to others. That happened to a Japanese RPG I bought, 2nd hand are so hard to find, while first hand is also almost impossible to find in most stores. Until the game company made a "Best price" (cheaper retail version) is released where the game is now at half-price of the original retail price. So with an online pass, it is almost certain that a cheaper version has to be released later to grab the loss of those customers who originally will buy it at retail price and plan to sell it.

 

[Crystic]

The problem I have with it is that the game store economy hasn't caught up. A recently released game bought used is generally only a $5 drop from the retail price. Adding $10 to that usually makes it $65, more than the retail price, which makes no sense. Obviously they should make the game worth less, like $45; however, that goes against a certain major game re-distributor's policy in that they need to make money, so they fuck you instead of the game company. Another problem is renting games. Now I'm sure they'll catch up eventually by having rental passes or something similar but it is still a hassle. I understand that game developers want to make more money for their product, but they're doing it in the wrong way. For years it has been that if you buy a game, it is yours to do what you want with it. Now we're in the mentality that we are purchasing licenses to play games, but not actually owning them. It's starting with online passes, then eventually it will spread to entire games themselves. While it may not be a problem for me in particular right now, I do not feel this is the correct path to travel down. My 2 cents.

 

[DR2K]

If there were online pass, Tekken Tag 2 100% will sell more that of DOA5.
.

If that happens it won't be for that reason, lol. But yeah Tekken Tag 2 has an online pass as well.

 

[MrMoon360]

Read my comments about software companies and licenses for the reasoning.

I know the point behind this. It is quite expensive to be a corporation these days.

 

[Riizch]

That's my issue with disk-locked content. You buy the game, so everything that is on that disk should be yours. It'd be like buying a CD and then having to pay extra to unlock some of the songs. It's ridiculous. I can understand the publishers' thinking when they introduced the online pass, but I do think we need a much better solution. I reckon games retailers should have to pay a license or something to a particular studio in order to sell their games second hand. That way, the publishers would make money on second hand sales, the consumer gets to buy a complete game and nobody feels screwed over.

 

[Crystic]

That's my issue with disk-locked content. You buy the game, so everything that is on that disk should be yours. It'd be like buying a CD and then having to pay extra to unlock some of the songs. It's ridiculous. I can understand the publishers' thinking when they introduced the online pass, but I do think we need a much better solution. I reckon games retailers should have to pay a license or something to a particular studio in order to sell their games second hand. That way, the publishers would make money on second hand sales, the consumer gets to buy a complete game and nobody feels screwed over.

The thing is, the game distributor feels screwed over and then they threaten to not sell the the developer's games which usually ends with a loss for both teams so the devs concede. It would be nice to see some developer call them out on their shit.