Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't like the car analogy. We're not talking about the game being faulty, we are talking about the game company withholding an aspect of the car. It's like the car company removing the windscreen wash when the car changes hands. You can still drive it, but you'll need to pay them extra to get full use.

The game EULA (which, incidentally, are often completely invalidated by trading standards) certainly gives the companies the right to withdraw support. That said, we are not arguing about the legality of the system. It's whether the company is right to do so.

I honestly think the 6 hour game with profits scraped from DLC, microtransactions for benefit ingame, online pass model is either going to destroy game creativity or embitter the consumer in the long term.

If it continued to cost the car company money, then it would be providing a service beyond the product.

Imagine if a company had All-Star installed in its cars for free, and had a non-transferable contract with the original buyer to pay for the service for X years... but only to new car buyers. And to used car buyers,, it didn't pay for that service. It was there, but you couldn't use it unless you paid for it.

That's basically what the multiplayer and patching services would be equivalent to in the car market. The old saying being "you get what you pay for", and a used game purchaser is paying less. than a new game purchaser.

Melissia wrote:If it continued to cost the car company money, then it would be providing a service beyond the product.

Imagine if a company had All-Star installed in its cars for free, and had a non-transferable contract with the original buyer to pay for the service for X years... but only to new car buyers. And to used car buyers,, it didn't pay for that service. It was there, but you couldn't use it unless you paid for it.

That's basically what the multiplayer and patching services would be equivalent to in the car market. The old saying being "you get what you pay for", and a used game purchaser is paying less. than a new game purchaser.

Couldn't the service for X years be factored in to the asking price for the seller? I bought this car and it still has 7 years left on its On-Star service. Because of that, I am tacking on XXXX amount of dollars?

Kinda like console games are overpriced (usually ten bucks more) for the "privilege" of playing on said console?

Melissia wrote:Kinda like console games are overpriced (usually ten bucks more) for the "privilege" of playing on said console?

Sounds about right.

Melissia wrote:If it continued to cost the car company money, then it would be providing a service beyond the product.

But if the original consumer kept the game it would continue to cost them money as well. I expect a company to support it's games. I think it fair to expect patches if they are forced to release a buggy product and to be able to play all the features they advertise with the game (online play etc). I consider this part of the sales agreement and won't hand over money otherwise.

I'm not familiar with all star and Google isn't helping. I assume it's some kind of breakdown service? That's a nice extra to have with any car and I would expect a company to offload something so potentially expensive if they get the chance, i.e if the end user changes. I don't consider online gaming to be a luxury. If they are advertising it with the game they should provide it. You say I should feel privileged that they are allowing me to use their service and I agree that they can charge what they like for the game. However, if someone has already paid for the service and I buy their game, I consider the debt paid.

To simplify

a) If X and Y buys the game new both lose money, the company gains money and everyone is happy.
b) If X sells Y his game, X and Y have more money and are happier than in a) and the company loses money. This is unfortunate for them but is a reality where used game sales exist.
c) If X sells his game and the company charges Y to play it, The company gains money without and extra work and Y loses money with no benefit whatsoever compared to b).

Like I've said before, companies are entitled to do it to increase profits but without giving something back it's cynical money-grabbing. I agree that they deserve to be paid and don't deserve to lose money to piracy and to Gamestop but they shouldn't make the customers shoulder that debt without providing something in return.

Melissia wrote:Kinda like console games are overpriced (usually ten bucks more) for the "privilege" of playing on said console?

Yes, its for the privilege because for the most part the game developers have to make a game to match the system instead of having the system owners upgrading a computer for the game. That and the PS3 comes with Blu-ray and a nice anti-scratch layer.

Back to EA though. I fully support the need to have an online pass for the game in order to access multiplayer. Besides the fact that I absolutely hate Gamestop it even annoys younger kids who buy the game used and can't play online because they don't have the online pass. It does hurt Gamestop more than others though because if you look at Gamestop's prices they often sell the used copy for five dollars less than retail, if the pass costs 10 then the person who bought the used game lost five dollars.

Then there's the fact that has been stated before, the company constantly maintains the servers and releases patches for the games. Gamestop doesn't contribute to the cost of maintaining these servers and releasing these patches. By creating the online passes they ensure partial payment for the services they offer.

It also prevents people who stole the game from using all of the features out of pocket(assuming they stole it from somebody else). Otherwise, its their product so they can do what they want with its content and its offerings. If you don't like it then don't buy their products, if you want the game then shell out the money for a new copy or pay more for a used copy.

1) X and Y both buy the game from the store and get the online pass which allows them to both play online. Company makes $120.00
2) X sells Y the game for 20 dollars less than retail. Y has to buy the online pass for 10 dollars more. The company makes an additional $70.00, and Y saves $10.00 and can play online.
3) X sells the game to Gamestop. Y buys it for five dollars less than retail and then has to buy the online pass, Y loses $5.00 Gamestop makes $30.00+ and the company makes $70.00.
4) X and Y wait for the game to get marked down. Company makes $80.00 and both people can play online.

Overall you're looking at a $50.00 difference in income if a person buys the game used if the person buying the used game also gets the online pass. If the person doesn't get the online pass the company loses a potential $60.00. Multiply that by a few thousand and you get a lot of lost potential income.

Console games went up by $10 a few years ago because of rising development costs. It's cheaper to make the same game for PC than for console because console games have higher licensing fees associated with them (and probably because publishers realized they could get away with it).

Microsoft can't regulate software for Windows as easily as they can for the XBox 360. EDIT: HD-DVD is also party to blame as were the costs of modern console development. The crime isn't that console games cost $10 more it's that PC games are going up to match just because.

This thread still going on? End of story, do a little research and view the company in question. A small up and comer or a company that listens to their customers well? Sure I would be glad to drop 10 dollars more than the price to support them. Companies like EA? Well no. Not for the Xbox's case anyway (Although I'm a ps3 players myself). Companies are greedy way past the profit point and will continue to do so until people speak up, although pirating is not the way to do so. Simply show them the way my friends and I have and refuse to purchase any and all titles that contain an online pass and this silliness will be done and over with. For many people I know trading that game in gave them the opportunity to try out a new title that they may have overlooked and perhaps made them a customer for life for that particular company. Kill the used games, you kill the trade-in's and if you kill the trade ins expect a larger difference in revenue for all concerned.

happydude wrote:This thread still going on? End of story, do a little research and view the company in question. A small up and comer or a company that listens to their customers well? Sure I would be glad to drop 10 dollars more than the price to support them. Companies like EA? Well no. Not for the Xbox's case anyway (Although I'm a ps3 players myself). Companies are greedy way past the profit point and will continue to do so until people speak up, although pirating is not the way to do so. Simply show them the way my friends and I have and refuse to purchase any and all titles that contain an online pass and this silliness will be done and over with. For many people I know trading that game in gave them the opportunity to try out a new title that they may have overlooked and perhaps made them a customer for life for that particular company. Kill the used games, you kill the trade-in's and if you kill the trade ins expect a larger difference in revenue for all concerned.

But, gamestop sucks.

Yes games do get a large amount of mark up. They can cost about $15 per game for the company and are sold at $60, which is why you will see games on sale with price changes. No store makes a profit off of the consoles, just games and accessories.

halonachos wrote:

happydude wrote:This thread still going on? End of story, do a little research and view the company in question. A small up and comer or a company that listens to their customers well? Sure I would be glad to drop 10 dollars more than the price to support them. Companies like EA? Well no. Not for the Xbox's case anyway (Although I'm a ps3 players myself). Companies are greedy way past the profit point and will continue to do so until people speak up, although pirating is not the way to do so. Simply show them the way my friends and I have and refuse to purchase any and all titles that contain an online pass and this silliness will be done and over with. For many people I know trading that game in gave them the opportunity to try out a new title that they may have overlooked and perhaps made them a customer for life for that particular company. Kill the used games, you kill the trade-in's and if you kill the trade ins expect a larger difference in revenue for all concerned.

But, gamestop sucks.

Yes games do get a large amount of mark up. They can cost about $15 per game for the company and are sold at $60, which is why you will see games on sale with price changes. No store makes a profit off of the consoles, just games and accessories.

My worry is the mom and pop game shops

If gamestop was really paying 15$ a game they wouldn't sell used games (that they bought for 20$) in the first place.

That's because they don't buy just used games. They also get the games from the developers for the cost that every other store does as well. The money they offer for trade ins is a gimmick that lets them get more money. You trade in a game and get 15 dollars, but chances are you may want a newer game that costs maybe 20 or so dollars so you end up paying more anyways.

I know what my store pays per game they receive from the developer and I know the mark up. Most stores have a large amount of mark up, gamestop does too but they don't often offer more than 15 dollars for a game.

halonachos wrote:Overall you're looking at a $50.00 difference in income if a person buys the game used if the person buying the used game also gets the online pass. If the person doesn't get the online pass the company loses a potential $60.00. Multiply that by a few thousand and you get a lot of lost potential income.

The potential loss of $60 is an argument against used games in general and are an unfortunate reality for games manufacturers that don't use a system like Steam.

Your scenario 2 seems to be the best for all concerned. However, the final exchange of money is the company asking for an extra tithe to play their game. The second hand customer must give them $10 of his money (which he saved by not buying their game new) to enjoy the same product that the original customer had. Used games certainly cut into profits for these people but gamestop aren't the bad guys as they can't force people to buy or sell games.