Kingdoms of Amalur's "Online Pass" continues a slippery slope f

[Fourjays Veteran]

Stop applying the faulty used car analogy, a car is NOT a consumable.

I didn't use a car analogy. I used a house analogy.

I already answered this, before you brought it up. so maybe you should go back and read my other post on consumable goods. a game is consumed like a carton of milk, witht he one exception that after you consumed it, it's still full so another person can consume it.

Sow ould you rather have "consumable" games for the price we have today, or would you rather the price of games go back to what they where in the 90's, with consumer price index adjustment making games today costs ?95. oh but we're forgetting that dev costs have also increase 100's if not 1000's so they price owuld have to increase even further to adjust for the increased costs of making them as well, not just the consumer index.

A game is consumed like a carton of milk? :laugh: I had no idea a game disappears after it is used. That explains where I'm going wrong. Clearly now that I've completed Uncharted 2 I'm supposed to throw it in the trash. Online passes make sense now, they are to make me dispose of the game correctly. So as I said (rather jokingly) the next idea is going to be biodegradable games? At least then our landfills won't be filled with 5+ million copies of Call of Duty every year...

It is nothing like a carton of milk. A game is a physical item, not a consumable. Like a book, a DVD, a computer, a TV, etc... physical items. It doesn't expire, it doesn't run out. And like every other physical item, there is no reason why the owner shouldn't be able to sell-on without being penalised, and a used-buyer should lose out because the creator is greedy. I have nearly always bought new. What do I get? PC games that don't work due to DRM rubbish, games with critical bugs still unfixed because the developer has decided to move on to the "2012 edition" and then "we don't get enough so want to penalise you because you use the used games market".

As with piracy, game developers have yet again chosen to penalise the legitimate consumer rather than rewarding them.

The "back in my day games cost ?100" is a useless argument. Nearly everything becomes cheaper as it becomes more mass-market and cheaper manufacturing methods are used.

[HawkMan]

I didn't use a car analogy. I used a house analogy.

same thing

A game is consumed like a carton of milk? :laugh: I had no idea a game disappears after it is used.

"WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look that was the point passing over your head like a F15 doing a flyover on a carrier.

I guess selective reading helps, since you can just read selective parts and respond to that and pretend your point wasn't already covered in the text you didn't read. though it doesn't make you seem very smart does it... Try again.

btw, maybe you should educate yoruself on what consumable means, here's a tip, it does not mean the item has to be gone after being "consumed".

The "back in my day games cost ?100" is a useless argument. Nearly everything becomes cheaper as it becomes more mass-market and cheaper manufacturing methods are used.

....

Seriously, use yoru brain for two seconds here ? Game production has NOT become cheaper. Back then games where made by anything from 2 to a "huge" team of 10, often in a basement. To

day, games are made in large production offices and studios with budgets bigger than movies.

They are hundreds and thousands of times more expensive to make.

[Fourjays Veteran]

"WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look that was the point passing over your head like a F15 doing a flyover on a carrier.

I guess selective reading helps, since you can just read selective parts and respond to that and pretend your point wasn't already covered in the text you didn't read. though it doesn't make you seem very smart does it... Try again.

btw, maybe you should educate yoruself on what consumable means, here's a tip, it does not mean the item has to be gone after being "consumed".

....

Seriously, use yoru brain for two seconds here ? Game production has NOT become cheaper. Back then games where made by anything from 2 to a "huge" team of 10, often in a basement. To

day, games are made in large production offices and studios with budgets bigger than movies.

They are hundreds and thousands of times more expensive to make.

Wow. I may have been sarcastic about your milk analogy, but I didn't insult your intelligence. Quite frankly no need for it.

I didn't selective read. I re-read your post 3 times as I couldn't believe the milk comparison (talking about selective reading... go back to my first post and there was a lot more to it than an analogy). I can only presume you are using a specialist variation of consumable. I've always understood it to be something that is consumed. I.E. gone after use. Checked the dictionary and it confirms as such. What definition are you using?

I'm well aware of how games are made (I'm a web developer and looking to shift into game development myself soon). But manufacturing of the distribution method does become cheaper. I'd be very surprised if game media many years ago did not cost considerably more than they do today. Especially as they were often system-specific cartridges and not universal discs.

As for the development of games themselves... like movies it is tied directly to the number of sales made. There are no ongoing costs apart from the manufacturing mentioned already. If the developers aren't making enough money, perhaps they aren't making good enough games? Just like movies.

[HawkMan]

No, a consumable does not need to be gone when you're done consuming it.

Also it's not about makign money or not, it's about making good money, which is why noone makes combat flight sims anymore. The stduio that made FA18 finished the game on their own, because their investors no longer wanted to invest in the project. it wasn't worth it, to little return from the investment. and now noone makes combat flight sims anymore, they barely make arcade flight sims.

[Smashing Pumpkin]

To consume something is not always to completely deplete it, but a consumable is most widely defined by said trait being not only it's logical conclusion but the intention of the producer so that it may be replaced.

Although games have become more of a consumable in that new editions come out every year they are not technically consumables in that it is not possible to use them up. If we're getting stuck on linguistics.

Whilst I do agree that developers should look for and invest in other ways of recouping 'lost profits' from the used game market I can also appreciate how the used game market would have a much larger impact on the full price retail market than say the used book market would, or the used car. Games are quickly finished, especially these days often in a matter of hours and thus resale could occur several times and each time the buyer gets the same retail experience for a fraction of the cost and with no money going to the developer. Though I'm unsure whether I think that the used game market has a larger impact on industry than the book or car markets just because I am more exposed to the former.

Even if I wasn't being biased I don't know why game developers should expect to receive cash from resale of their products just because their case is particularly special. Yes it costs money to make products but perhaps instead of pumping out more and more crap laced with various ploys to extract extra revenue they should concentrate on producing a decent longer more fulfilling game and utilising DLC as has already been noted above in positive ways.

I dunno. I can't help but think in some ways the game market has grown too big, there's so much crap on the shelves and so much money being made that in times of economic uncertainty such as these the suits at the top are bound to be looking for ways to minimise damage. They've grown too used to having too much.

[TheLegendOfMart]

Games are quickly finished, especially these days often in a matter of hours and thus resale could occur several times and each time the buyer gets the same retail experience for a fraction of the cost and with no money going to the developer.

The developer has already been paid for that copy of the game even if its resold a million times.

By your logic then, when a movie has been sold second hand some of the scenes are missing until you pay for a movie pass to put the components of the movie that are missing back?

Or a music CD that has 1/4 of the tracks missing that you can only get if you pay for a music pass to get the rest of the songs?

Why do game developers deserve it more than movie studios/music labels?

[Smashing Pumpkin]

Looking for an argument are you?

I already said "I don't know why game developers should expect to receive cash from resale of their products just because their case is particularly special". Unless as I suspected the used games market is significantly larger than the used market for other products and is actually hurting the developers. I also said too though that I may be biased in that assumption.

Knew as soon as I posted someone would swoop in and grab one sentence out of context and try to **** all over it.

I'm afraid that this case is quite different to that of a movie with it's middle scenes removed, or an album with a quarter of the tracks missing. This is talking about placing restrictions on accessing additional aspects of the piece of entertainment which are not central. Granted, these kinds of practice only set a precedent for future devs to start removing the end mission from a game for used buyers. but until then I'm afraid you cannot compare games to movies and CDs in that context. Much less can you lampoon my logic when your own is full of holes too.

edit

Whilst we're at it I believe you should be introduced to the concept of added value, that is value which is additional to the products core. DLC thrown in as a bonus for retail buyers is a good example of this, as is the service one receives at a shoe shop as opposed to a cheaper online retailer or the exclusivity of being an early adopter of anything be it video game hardware or a new fashion line.

[TheLegendOfMart]

Looking for an argument are you?

I already said "I don't know why game developers should expect to receive cash from resale of their products just because their case is particularly special". Unless as I suspected the used games market is significantly larger than the used market for other products and is actually hurting the developers. I also said too though that I may be biased in that assumption.

Knew as soon as I posted someone would swoop in and grab one sentence out of context and try to **** all over it.

I'm afraid that this case is quite different to that of a movie with it's middle scenes removed, or an album with a quarter of the tracks missing. This is talking about placing restrictions on accessing additional aspects of the piece of entertainment which are not central. Granted, these kinds of practice only set a precedent for future devs to start removing the end mission from a game for used buyers. but until then I'm afraid you cannot compare games to movies and CDs in that context. Much less can you lampoon my logic when your own is full of holes too.

You are just arguing semantics, a multiplayer experience is pretty much expected in a game thesedays and if they dont charge extra at retail for this, in your words "additional", content then they shouldnt expect to get a cut of the second hand sale of the game.

[Smashing Pumpkin]

Multiplayer? I thought we were discussing the game that this thread is about, a single player game with DLC thrown in for retail purchasers?

I don't agree with the fact devs seem to have dlc planned out and even ready for distro on the release date of the game, but it's the standard now isn't it. DLC is here to stay.

[Amarok]

A game is a consumable product, limiting the damages from used sales is their right and makes sense. If you don't want to pay full price, wait a month or two and pick it up from the bargain bin.

and no, a consumable product is not comparable to used car sales.

*faints* You and I agree completely on a subject.

[TheLegendOfMart]

Multiplayer? I thought we were discussing the game that this thread is about, a single player game with DLC thrown in for retail purchasers?

I don't agree with the fact devs seem to have dlc planned out and even ready for distro on the release date of the game, but it's the standard now isn't it. DLC is here to stay.

Online passes are usually multiplayer, probably got the wrong end of the stick. Apologies, i dont have any issues with added incentive to buy it new for DLC but they can shove multiplayer online passes where the sun doesnt shine.

[Fourjays Veteran]

No, a consumable does not need to be gone when you're done consuming it.

Also it's not about makign money or not, it's about making good money, which is why noone makes combat flight sims anymore. The stduio that made FA18 finished the game on their own, because their investors no longer wanted to invest in the project. it wasn't worth it, to little return from the investment. and now noone makes combat flight sims anymore, they barely make arcade flight sims.

I sympathise as I've enjoyed flight sims in the past and have also seen it happen with similar games (like train sims). But attempting to force customers into a no-used-sales situation is not going to save these games - they simply don't have a significant enough interest to begin with. What they need to do is keep the customers who are paying. Look at the Railworks series and how they appear to have turned a dying train sim market around. They make money from releasing high quality DLC for the game on a regular basis (usually - there are exceptions), listening to what features or DLC their customers want to see, and by giving new versions for "free" to owners of the previous version ("free" as the last update had an associated DLC route that utilised all the new features - so you could buy that if you wanted, or wait for another DLC route to come along that uses them, or add them to existing routes yourself). They added value for their customers, and have kept them interested in the long run.

Prior to that, I played Trainz, which as far as I know, went bankrupt a few years ago and was bought up by another company. Why? They release a new version every year, with little-to-no new features and have jumped on every bandwagon and gimmick along the way.

If I think about it, the best games I've played in the last few years are the ones that have seen a long term commitment from the development team - Uncharted, LittleBigPlanet, Gran Turismo, Hearts of Iron, Europa Universalis, Railworks/Train Simulator, Left 4 Dead 2, Skyrim (if the DLC promises hold true) and more I can't think of right now.

To consume something is not always to completely deplete it, but a consumable is most widely defined by said trait being not only it's logical conclusion but the intention of the producer so that it may be replaced.

Although games have become more of a consumable in that new editions come out every year they are not technically consumables in that it is not possible to use them up. If we're getting stuck on linguistics.

Whilst I do agree that developers should look for and invest in other ways of recouping 'lost profits' from the used game market I can also appreciate how the used game market would have a much larger impact on the full price retail market than say the used book market would, or the used car. Games are quickly finished, especially these days often in a matter of hours and thus resale could occur several times and each time the buyer gets the same retail experience for a fraction of the cost and with no money going to the developer. Though I'm unsure whether I think that the used game market has a larger impact on industry than the book or car markets just because I am more exposed to the former.

Even if I wasn't being biased I don't know why game developers should expect to receive cash from resale of their products just because their case is particularly special. Yes it costs money to make products but perhaps instead of pumping out more and more crap laced with various ploys to extract extra revenue they should concentrate on producing a decent longer more fulfilling game and utilising DLC as has already been noted above in positive ways.

I dunno. I can't help but think in some ways the game market has grown too big, there's so much crap on the shelves and so much money being made that in times of economic uncertainty such as these the suits at the top are bound to be looking for ways to minimise damage. They've grown too used to having too much.

I think you've summed up the point I've been trying to make best. Although every analogy is going to be wrong as there is no exact equivalent. Every other market going has a second hand market attached to it. Why should games be any different? If they aren't making enough money they need to look at why they aren't. Not start trying to restrict their customer base.

Unless I'm much mistaken, the developers/publishers that started this whole "project $10" thing are not the ones that are struggling financially... which would say a lot about the motives behind it.

[Smashing Pumpkin]

I rather agree with you when it comes to multiplayer passes, if it's in the game when it ships it should stay in the game.

Does anybody have the time to go looking for some recorded profits from game devs, is it even devs and not publishers to blame here? Also the sizes of the used market for games, if calculable, in comparison to that of used books and dvds?

It's hard to compare because some people regard games as comparable to large purchases such as houses and cars, which in reality represent a much larger investment for most people, and CDs and DVDs are usually much much cheaper meaning the used marketplace is smaller, whilst books range in their prices from a penny to a thousand pounds so they're not really valid either.

[Ayepecks]

The developer has already been paid for that copy of the game even if its resold a million times.

By your logic then, when a movie has been sold second hand some of the scenes are missing until you pay for a movie pass to put the components of the movie that are missing back?

Or a music CD that has 1/4 of the tracks missing that you can only get if you pay for a music pass to get the rest of the songs?

Why do game developers deserve it more than movie studios/music labels?

Your arguments are becoming more and more irrational.

Nothing is missing from the games. They're being given additional content -- that's exactly what this topic is discussing; it is not discussing online passes. It's as if a Blu-ray was sold, and the additional digital copy is no longer available to the second-hand sale... which is, unsurprisingly, exactly how it works.

Also: you're right, they've already been paid for that copy of the game. But they have also lost the potential of a sale from second-hand copies.

[farmeunit]

They built a product, they want a return on investment. It's not exactly rocket science.

They did get a return when they sold it in the first place.

[compl3x]

Your arguments are becoming more and more irrational.

Nothing is missing from the games. They're being given additional content -- that's exactly what this topic is discussing; it is not discussing online passes. It's as if a Blu-ray was sold, and the additional digital copy is no longer available to the second-hand sale... which is, unsurprisingly, exactly how it works.

Also: you're right, they've already been paid for that copy of the game. But they have also lost the potential of a sale from second-hand copies.

We are discussing onlline passes and how they restrict content. The point I'd make is that devs/publishers are only blocking extras or using online passes to help pay for multiplayer costs. Do you or anyone else in this topic think it is completely out of the question that soon they might take out fundamental parts of a game if it is bought second hand? Like, I don't know, the ending.

People in this topic are speaking as if devs/publishers are living on scraps, barely making it by. They're making more profits than ever before! But, hey, why not try to squeeze that little bit extra out of consumers while you can.

[Ayepecks]

We are discussing onlline passes and how they restrict content. The point I'd make is that devs/publishers are only blocking extras or using online passes to help pay for multiplayer costs. Do you or anyone else in this topic think it is completely out of the question that soon they might take out fundamental parts of a game if it is bought second hand? Like, I don't know, the ending.

People in this topic are speaking as if devs/publishers are living on scraps, barely making it by. They're making more profits than ever before! But, hey, why not try to squeeze that little bit extra out of consumers while you can.

Umm... have you not been keeping up with the industry? More developers are being closed than any other point in history. They may not be "living on scraps," but they are getting closed down. They're not squeezing anything out of customers. You're not giving them anything, so how are you a customer?

[mattmatik]

What I'd like to see is a comparison of new vs used prices from GameStop when it comes to games that have online passes. Like I mentioned above, a new Arkham City goes for $39.99 while used is $54.99. That $54.99 GameStop pockets 100% - and the consumer still has to shell out whatever it is for the online pass. I also remember when I bought Battlefield 3 that it was $44.99 new compared to $54.99 used.

Now, as was mentioned above, where I see this really hurting is GameFly or other rentals - or even just borrowing games from a friend. A buddy let me borrow ME2 last week, fortunately he didn't use the online pass for that. To me, that is where the biggest argument lies, and even then, publishers/developers are within their right to restrict that (talking legally here, not ethically).

We are discussing onlline passes and how they restrict content. The point I'd make is that devs/publishers are only blocking extras or using online passes to help pay for multiplayer costs. Do you or anyone else in this topic think it is completely out of the question that soon they might take out fundamental parts of a game if it is bought second hand? Like, I don't know, the ending.

People in this topic are speaking as if devs/publishers are living on scraps, barely making it by. They're making more profits than ever before! But, hey, why not try to squeeze that little bit extra out of consumers while you can.

This is definitely possible, and while it sucks, they don't make jack off second hand sales.

[compl3x]

Umm... have you not been keeping up with the industry? More developers are being closed than any other point in history. They may not be "living on scraps," but they are getting closed down. They're not squeezing anything out of customers. You're not giving them anything, so how are you a customer?

Getting closed down ≠ failing industry. Ones that are closing have done poorly financially because they've released games that haven't done very well. Not because consumers aren't buying games.

I'd like to make the point that I have only bought used games 3 times in the past. So my position against online passes isn't because I purchase lots of used games, or even trade in games. I just cannot see why this particular industry thinks it's fine to double-dip. No one has explained this yet beyond "They're consumables that can be resold, therefore the devs/publishers deserve more money! Don't dare compare it to used cars! It isn't the same thing!" I don't even understand how they fall into the category of consumables when the definition of consumable is: "Noun: A commodity that is intended to be used up relatively quickly". How is a game used up very quickly? If the game has a high replay value, is it no longer a consumable? How about if it is a collector's or limited edition intended to be kept long term? I'm sincerely confused. Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

[Ayepecks]

Getting closed down ≠ failing industry. Ones that are closing have done poorly financially because they've released games that haven't done very well. Not because consumers aren't buying games.

:blink:

And how do said games "not do well"? Because apparently sales have nothing to do with not doing very well, according to you.

And consumables are CONSUMED. They are USED UP, as your very definition says. Games are not consumables. They still exist after being played.

[HawkMan]

Consumed does not mean used up

[Gerowen]

Video games are an optional part of life, and therefore I can do without them. I actually downloaded the demo of this game and thought it was really fun, but after reading this and other news about things EA is doing to the game industry with this online pass bull, I'm seriously considering just letting this one go and moving on.

[shakey]

Other forms of products that when sold used, don't lose quality or anything else...

Movies

Books

Tools

Paintings and other Art

Some products actually even go up in value, due to the impact and importance they have in the community, like comics and cards.

The excuse used by companies on games is just horrible, and defending it doesn't help the consumer. Games haven't risen in price, and the usage of the same engine for 6+ years doesn't really make new games cost more. Especially when we haven't seen many original titles come out. Companies should focus more on making quality games, instead of chruning crap remake/rehash of the same stuff. Indie developers have proven how there is a market for such games, and that they can be sold at very reasonable prices.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

it's very simple, folks. if you dont like their decision, boycott. stop supporting it. no one needs to play this game that bad. if you do, then shell out $60 for a new copy.

[playXray]

Like I said before, none of this matters in the long run as online passes will be obsolete when digital distribution takes over. I think people should be more concerned about what will happen to the 'used games' market when everything is digital rather than worrying about these temporary online passes.