This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Why are people so against Online Passes?

#61mogar002Posted 12/13/2012 6:46:20 PM
What he said should have been common sense 20+ years ago, he doesn't need a source. Publisher sells the game to the retailer and the retailer sells it to the customer. In both new and used instance the retailer is the only one making money because the publisher already made it before the game even was released publicly.
---
I am Mogar, God of Irony and The Devourer of Topics.
http://i33.tinypic.com/2hwco6d.jpg
#62CronoDynePosted 12/13/2012 6:46:34 PM
HotshotDougB posted...
CronoDyne posted...
First of all, for the umpteenth time, profits from both used and new sales of games sales go directly to the retailer. It doesn't matter if you buy used or new, ALL the money is going into the hands of the store you bought it from, NOT the publisher.


So we just making up arguments and not citing sources? Cool.

Earth is flat and everything revolves around it.


So you just want to ignore simple reality, then? Tell me.. where exactly do you think these retailers get the games from? Do you think the publishers decide, "hey, let's hand out all our games for free to these stores, and hope the kind consumers will buy them"? I truly hope that I don't have to cite the basics of simple marketing. This is like "citing" a "source" to show that guns are used in war. It's common facts and history. Retailers buy games from publishers who pay developers to make a game. It's just the way the world works, guy.
---
Goodbye Chewy. You were the best friend I could ask for. Rest in peace, buddy.
#63agrissaPosted 12/13/2012 6:49:06 PM
HotshotDougB posted...
CronoDyne posted...
First of all, for the umpteenth time, profits from both used and new sales of games sales go directly to the retailer. It doesn't matter if you buy used or new, ALL the money is going into the hands of the store you bought it from, NOT the publisher.


So we just making up arguments and not citing sources? Cool.

Earth is flat and everything revolves around it.


The truth hurts doesn't it.
---
I had faith in humanity until I discovered Internet Message Boards.
#64gjc2007Posted 12/13/2012 6:52:49 PM(edited)
From: OzzieArcane | #004
Personally I've never understood people who buy used to save a measly $5 in the first place. Saving $5 is that important that you'd rather have a potentially scratched up version of the game?


*facepalm*

There's that "you only save $5" rubbish again. Go to somewhere like Gohastings and tell me I'm only saving $5.

From: bsballa09 | #010
So the devs don't deserve money for making the game?


The publisher paid them to make the game. Not a penny of online pass cash goes to the devs.

The ironic part of all of these DLC/Pass shenanigans is that they are flat out making games depreciate at a faster rate than ever.

From: TheExiled280 | #151
not if you buy used. they got no money from that. i think OP is just a way to discourage buying used when their are still new copies of the game available. I only buy used games when the game is impossible to find new (ex: most PS2 and PSP games)


First sale doctrine. Yes. they already got their money.

I'm going to tell you something, and this may blow your fricken mind......but the only company's pockets you put money into is the Retailer regardless of if you buy new or used.
---
Why used games don't hurt the industry and why content passes are bull****: http://umthumbs.gametrailers.com/users/noobiablos/gamepad/?

From: HotshotDougB | #259
So we just making up arguments and not citing sources? Cool.

Earth is flat and everything revolves around it.


I LITERALLY laughed out out.

Really, you have no idea how B2B works.
#65HotshotDougBPosted 12/13/2012 6:54:17 PM
CronoDyne posted...
So you just want to ignore simple reality, then? Tell me.. where exactly do you think these retailers get the games from? Do you think the publishers decide, "hey, let's hand out all our games for free to these stores, and hope the kind consumers will buy them"? I truly hope that I don't have to cite the basics of simple marketing. This is like "citing" a "source" to show that guns are used in war. It's common facts and history. Retailers buy games from publishers who pay developers to make a game. It's just the way the world works, guy.


So then why do developers make such a big stink when their game doesn't sell well post release?

If a finite number of games are sold to stores, then by that logic, sales don't mean **** beyond likelihood of a sequel.
#66Xenesis XenonPosted 12/13/2012 7:01:03 PM(edited)
HotshotDougB posted...
So then why do developers make such a big stink when their game doesn't sell well post release?

If a finite number of games are sold to stores, then by that logic, sales don't mean **** beyond likelihood of a sequel.


Because if a game sells exceptionally well, multiple print runs of the game can be justified then commissioned, usually means they meet some sort of performance based quota with the publisher and they get paid more or a bonus or something like that.

The same way that developers often get metacritic bonuses and the like.

The flipside is of course, if a studio puts out poor selling games they're unlikely to get future publishing contracts. Which can often be a death knell.
---
www.warsworldnews.com - Wars World News - The most chilled AW community on the web.
#67HotshotDougBPosted 12/13/2012 7:01:37 PM
Xenesis Xenon posted...
HotshotDougB posted...
So then why do developers make such a big stink when their game doesn't sell well post release?

If a finite number of games are sold to stores, then by that logic, sales don't mean **** beyond likelihood of a sequel.


Because if a game sells exceptionally well, multiple print runs of the game can be justified then commissioned, usually means they meet some sort of performance based quota with the publisher and they get paid more or a bonus or something like that.

The same way that developers often get metacritic bonuses and the like.


So then by this logic... if someone buys second hand, it denies them the ability to perform multiple print runs... which means denying them potential profit. So how are online passes not justified, knowing this? lol
#68regsantotomasPosted 12/13/2012 7:02:00 PM
The truth is that online passes are an extra way for publishers to make money where they would have otherwise made none. It's effectiveness in combating used game purchases is questionable. And no, I don't really subscribe to the server cost argument either.

They are a minor inconvenience for those who primarily buy new.

This isn't to say that people who buy used should be derided. Far from it - it is a legal form of trade in this market. At the same time, the reality is that publishers owe nothing to those who are buying games used with regards to service or support. The resell value of your game is largely irrelevant to them.

I think that people can go round and round but nobody convinced that disagree with tactic will be convinced otherwise.

That doesn't mean that those that support games with online passes should be vilified either. They simply disagree with the notion that this tactic is detrimental.

The market will decide for itself to probably the dismay of those who oppose online passes so vehemently.
---
the bitter truth is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. ~ Anton Ego
#69ShadowYomiPosted 12/13/2012 7:02:28 PM
Sometimes I wonder would online passes really be a problem if the people selling used games gave you a fair discount because of the pass? All things considered they are selling you a incomplete product.
---
The more people complain about others using a character or weapon the more people will use it.
#70Neoprime616Posted 12/13/2012 7:03:30 PM
CronoDyne posted...
How many damn times am I going to have to explain this, and in how many topics? It's getting frustrating.

First of all, for the umpteenth time, profits from both used and new sales of games sales go directly to the retailer. It doesn't matter if you buy used or new, ALL the money is going into the hands of the store you bought it from, NOT the publisher.

Second of all, an online pass is simply a company selling an already purchased product twice, essentially double dipping in sales. If one person buys a game with online, they bought their spot on the server along with it. When that persons sells their game, they sold the spot on the server along with it. When someone who buys used has to now spend $10 on an online pass, they're paying for nothing. The server spot was already paid for by the original owner. Publishers are literally getting something for nothing. Not to mention the fact it ruins the resale value of a game, and publishers are putting their hands in the transactions of every sale after the initial purchase, completely ignoring the First-Sale doctrine and the consumer's free market.

THAT's what's inherently wrong with online passes.

*EDIT*

They're also diminishing the profits brought in by competing companies, namely Gamefly or other game rental services, who are losing potential rentals because their customers aren't getting the full product. This is a clear violation of anti trust laws.


This man is smart, he deserves Noble Peace Prize or something.