Online passes and the used-game market

Developers and publishers say that online passes exist to encourage gamers to buy new in the present day. Because without them, there is no reason for gamers to buy new games at all, when Gamestop employees are constantly reminding you that you can buy used and save $5. More than ever, gamers are making decisions to wait for cheap used copies rather than purchase a game new, and the impact this is having on new game sales is compelling devs and publishers to react with new ways to protect their income.

Meanwhile, many gamers are outraged at the prospect of online passes, and there are many varied reasons as to why. Afterall, we all want full access to games. We want a full experience for our money, even if we buy a used game. We're also uncertain about the availability of these passes in the future, and we want to be able to preserve old games, and have access to today's games in thirty-odd years time.

We're always looking for new ways to save money. As consumers, we love a bargain. If we get the same product for less, we'll take it, and the impact that choice may have probably isn't going to crush the good feeling you get having saved a few dollars.

The online pass is the best defense the industry has right now from what they percieve as an ever-growing threat. The used game. I happen to be on their side in this issue, and over the next several paragraphs I'll explain why. I invite anybody reading to offer their veiws, but please refrain from using name-calling or dismissive statements. And if you feel like there is a better solution than online passes, then please feel free to share those ideas.

---

Its easy to assume that online passes are about greasing a few more dollars out of gamers, to fund the apparently 'evil tyrannical money-grubbing' maniacs who create the games we love. We look at online passes in shock and horror, but then comment on how sad it is that games like Okami sell only 600,000 new copies. Clover Studios closed. No more Okami.

Okami is a great example of why developers are afraid of new IP. LA Noire is another (Team Bondi went broke. Closed.) Most gamers look at new IP with uncertainty and the typical resort for Joe Gamer is to wait a month and buy it used. Knowing that, it should come as no surprise then, that we have a new Call of Duty every year, and Final Fantasy 13-2 launched just this week.

We're treated to trailers, gameplay videos, screenshots, and all sorts of promotions. We're barraged with advertisements and newsletters and developer interviews. We have access to playable demos, press previews and reviews. Yet still, we look at new IP such as Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning with great uncertainty (Okay the demo was buggy and based on an old build. Bad example.) We're afraid of this new IP, and the developers are aware of this.

But is this what we really want? Whether we intended it or not, this is the path we all took as gamers. Now we're walking this long and dark road called Call of Duty 66 and though our feet are weary, there is no end in sight, and another Dynasty Warriors is just around the corner. We have only ourselves to blame.

---

One common argument is that used games shouldn't hurt devs because the game has already sold and they've already gotten their money. This argument holds no water, whatsoever. When you're talking about a 20 year old game you bought on ebay, it isn't going to hurt anyone, and you can be certain that Miyamoto isn't going to cry if you bought Super Mario World for $2 at a flea market.

Another common argument is to begin comparing used games to used cars, but again - this view completely ignores the fact that:
A) a game is not a car.
B) used cars don't come with manufacturer warranties, free registration and all sorts of other perks,
C) nobody ever says "Thats a nice car. I'll wait a few weeks then buy it used".
D) You don't trade-in your car after driving it for a week, buy another, repeat.

Comparing used games to used cars is like comparing a rabbit to a toaster. Don't bother.

Where used games DO hurt is when consumers have a choice. Gamestop/EbGames, GAME, Gametraders, and others of the sort. These stores rake in millions of dollars re-selling the same copies over and over again, and this does nothing at all to support the people who create these games. Joe Gamer buys a used game at $55, plays for a week, then trades it in for a $5 value credit on their next purchase. When you walk into these stores, you are surrounded by used games. When you attempt to purchase a new game, some dude behind the counter wants to remind you that you can save $5 and buy the same game used.

The math is very simple. Every time you choose a used copy over a new copy, that is one new copy that does not sell. The impact for developers and publishers is direct and painful. The more consumers making that choice, the fewer new copies will sell. You don't need a degree in economics to understand that.

---

Many people talk about greedy corporations, because its easy to throw such accusations around, and thanks to the Occupy movement, 'greed' has become the new buzz word. But who are we talking about here? Sure, there are some blatant examples of greed and excess, particularly in the oil and mining industries (they don't even attempt to cover it up either). Video game developers and publishers (Yes, even those most hated - and in some cases, deserved - such as EA and Activision) are working in an ever-changing, ever-expanding environment, riding the waves of the most competitive entertainment industry in the world, and every day they deliver the high-quality, highly-demanded games that people like you and me want.

Developers spend millions creating games for a massive audience that is demanding as it is volatile. We want insane mind-blowing graphics, high-quality gameplay, voice actors and music; we want stable online servers, and huge amounts of content (but we cry foul at DLC, huh. SMH). After all this, and the constant moaning at developers in blog comments about how crap the latest trailer looked; an overwhelming majority of gamers simply aren't willing to cough up $60 - The same price we were paying 10 and 15 years ago for games that had development costs at a fraction of what the average game requires today.

Greed, you say? Joe Gamer who would rather save $5 on a used copy, and then expect full access as if he has some kind of birthright or natural entitlement to such content is the one guilty of greed here. Joe Gamer who doesn't care where his money goes, knowing the devs get nothing while lining Gamestop's pockets is the one guilty of greed. Joe Gamer is the one nickel-and-diming.

Rocksteady says if you buy their game new, you get to play as Catwoman. If you buy it used, Catwoman requires a pass that will cost you $10, and that money goes to them. Joe Gamer hears this and goes into a FROTHING RAGE. Joe Gamer is a spoiled, over-entitled and greedy person who wants everything for less. Don't be like Joe Gamer. He doesn't get laid.

---

Getting into personal territory now...

I've spent a vast amount of time researching online passes and their place in the industry, as well as gamers, and I've been an avid supporter of the gaming industry for most of my life. From the earliest memories I have of my childhood, jamming away on a Philips VideoPac G7000, I've been a gamer, and its what I love. I've read hundreds of lengthy, often hate-filled discussions across the net, regarding online passes, and yet the most common response I've seen is "boycott".

Think about that word for a moment and what it implies.

These developers use online passes as an incentive for you to buy the game new, instead of waiting for a cheap used copy, and the best course of action you can think of, is to boycott them? I'm sorry, but you've already been boycotting every developer behind every game you've ever waited to buy used in the name of saving a few dollars. And that is why we now have online passes. That's right. You are the reason we have online passes. If you're going to blame and boycott someone. Start with yourself.

If you feel strongly about online passes, or the greater gaming industry in general, then I strongly recommend you research and think hard about where your hard earned money is going.

Keep it civil. Thanks.

Thank you for your intelligent, thought-provoking reply.

The used market is the ONLY means of the common people to have INFLUENCE over the video game industry and to defend themselves from it.

The idea that games come with any kind of promissary support or guarantees is laughable.

First they show you bullshots and trailers and marketing to make you buy the game.

Once you buy it, you have NO SUPPORT, NO RECOURSE, hell look at Skyrim for PS3.

What recourse do we have?

People who bought the game got f*cked. It's straight up fraud.

Most devs/publishers are exactly like that.

It's a ripoff industry.

Ultimately every dev/publisher decides for themselves what (if any) means and measures they will use to (TRY to) guarantee an income for themselves.

And ultimately every gamer will decide what is acceptable to him.

I'm personally at the breaking point, where I'm starting to see the industry for what it is : a seedy, fraud-infested no mans land.

Years ago I would see a trailer and say "I must have that!"

Now I see the trailer and say "What kind of DRM? Does it have a pass? MMO subscription? DLC's on disk?" and if the answer is yes then it gets the middle finger.

I'm no longer willing to pay $60 sight-unseen for a game that I don't know for a fact will even run properly.

These days I wait for extreme price drops of $20 or less.

Because it's less risk of getting burned, and the game already has 5-10 patches, it's as stable as its ever going to be, with a community of guinea pigs who bought the game first and beta-tested it.

Maybe we're hurting the industry, but the industry hurt us first.

Bottom line, I think we are all caught in a circle of cynicism, where devs and players mistrust each other.

Online passes take that cynicism to the next level.

Just because a game didn't sell, doesn't mean it will sell more with a pass.

Most likely it will sell even less.

And all the resources that devs and publishers have to put into the pass system itself, having to put up a DRM server and maintain it, having to add code to look for the DRM, you think these are good things?

It's bad for everybody and driving customers away from gaming in general.

You're not gonna get more money, you're going to get less.

We're also uncertain about the availability of these passes in the future, and we want to be able to preserve old games, and have access to today's games in thirty-odd years time.Lhomity

I buy all my games new because I like to support the developers and I like my game discs to be in immaculate condition. I take perfect care of my games, and if you've ever bought used, you'd know that most gamers don't. That said, as a game collector, the main problem that I have with online passes is the segment that I quoted from your original post.

I'd also like to add that I did buy 2 brand new EA published games that had online passes included, and both of the passes were expired and invalid. The customer service to deal with this sort of thing is atrocious, and I hope no one else has to experience it, even though I'm sure they will.

Why not buy used games? They are cheaper.

Think of it this way. Why is the specific game being sold back to Gamestop? Because the gamer thought the game sucked. If developers would just be more creative with their games, instead of trying to copy each other, maybe people would hold on to their games causing other people to buy new copies because their isn't any used copies to buy.

If games were more reasonably priced the used market would be a lot smaller. In the UK the average game price is £40 which is a huge chunk of the average wage. Bearing in mind that gross profits from gaming is now approaching and in some cases surpassing hollywood, its a bit much to ask to still be paying 4-5x more per game than movie DVD.

Also one thing the anti-used crowd always seem to conveniently forget is that used games make up a huge chunk of the profit that your local high street game shop makes. So huge in fact that it dwarfs new game sales. If used games were taken off the high street how many shops would you think will be left trading? Not only that, but the money poured into your local game shop via used sales is helping that game store to buy in the new games for those that can afford them.

Its also easy to gloss straight over the problems caused by the industry that they are too pig headed to try to solve. If sales are down, the devs could unite and speak with the console owners about reducing the royalties per sale. They could try out new IP ideas in XBLA/PSN and put the big money only into established franchises.

I'm johnny gamer. I work 40 hours a week, and have mortgage, bills, food, credit card, yearly holiday, car payments, fuel.... all coming before what the next must have game is. I have enough to deal with, and perhaps if game sales are down, then new approaches are needed from the developer/sales team/ side. Not everything is down to the public to fix.

If games were more reasonably priced the used market would be a lot smaller. In the UK the average game price is £40 which is a huge chunk of the average wage. Bearing in mind that gross profits from gaming is now approaching and in some cases surpassing hollywood, its a bit much to ask to still be paying 4-5x more per game than movie DVD.

Also one thing the anti-used crowd always seem to conveniently forget is that used games make up a huge chunk of the profit that your local high street game shop makes. So huge in fact that it dwarfs new game sales. If used games were taken off the high street how many shops would you think will be left trading? Not only that, but the money poured into your local game shop via used sales is helping that game store to buy in the new games for those that can afford them.

Its also easy to gloss straight over the problems caused by the industry that they are too pig headed to try to solve. If sales are down, the devs could unite and speak with the console owners about reducing the royalties per sale. They could try out new IP ideas in XBLA/PSN and put the big money only into established franchises.

I'm johnny gamer. I work 40 hours a week, and have mortgage, bills, food, credit card, yearly holiday, car payments, fuel.... all coming before what the next must have game is. I have enough to deal with, and perhaps if game sales are down, then new approaches are needed from the developer/sales team/ side. Not everything is down to the public to fix.

Smileyvirus

++++++

Why not buy used games? They are cheaper.

Think of it this way. Why is the specific game being sold back to Gamestop? Because the gamer thought the game sucked. If developers would just be more creative with their games, instead of trying to copy each other, maybe people would hold on to their games causing other people to buy new copies because their isn't any used copies to buy.

If games were more reasonably priced the used market would be a lot smaller. In the UK the average game price is £40 which is a huge chunk of the average wage. Bearing in mind that gross profits from gaming is now approaching and in some cases surpassing hollywood, its a bit much to ask to still be paying 4-5x more per game than movie DVD.

Also one thing the anti-used crowd always seem to conveniently forget is that used games make up a huge chunk of the profit that your local high street game shop makes. So huge in fact that it dwarfs new game sales. If used games were taken off the high street how many shops would you think will be left trading? Not only that, but the money poured into your local game shop via used sales is helping that game store to buy in the new games for those that can afford them.

Its also easy to gloss straight over the problems caused by the industry that they are too pig headed to try to solve. If sales are down, the devs could unite and speak with the console owners about reducing the royalties per sale. They could try out new IP ideas in XBLA/PSN and put the big money only into established franchises.

I'm johnny gamer. I work 40 hours a week, and have mortgage, bills, food, credit card, yearly holiday, car payments, fuel.... all coming before what the next must have game is. I have enough to deal with, and perhaps if game sales are down, then new approaches are needed from the developer/sales team/ side. Not everything is down to the public to fix.

Smileyvirus

Good points. The effect this would have would be putting a lot of game stores out of business. All the small time shops like Gamestop and even lesser known ones like local shops around people's houses would go out of business, and the only places left to shop at would be big time corporations like Best Buy. I wouldn't have a problem with that because I do all my game shopping at Best Buy to begin with, but just saying that a lot of people would lose their jobs and a lot of companies would go under if this trend continues, all so that the developers who are already rich can line their pockets with even more cash. It just sounds like greed to me. Kind of like tax the poor, but don't tax the rich.

Online passes don't make used games worthless, but they SHOULD make them less valuable. I think the fault is with Gamestop, et. al. for not reducing the price of a used game to be more in line with it's actual value. Used copies of games that require an online pass are LESS VALUABLE because they no longer have part of the game that was available when it was new. People who (wrongly) compare used game sales to used car sales seem to forget that a car that's wholly intact is worth A LOT more than a car without the tires and back seat. That's what an online pass should be viewed as.

I do think online passes suck, just so everyone knows. I just think the used game vendors should adjust prices accordingly for the games that do have them.

And yes, that would make the game less valuable as a trade-in as well, but such is life.

Online passes piss me off

If games were more reasonably priced the used market would be a lot smaller. In the UK the average game price is £40 which is a huge chunk of the average wage. Bearing in mind that gross profits from gaming is now approaching and in some cases surpassing hollywood, its a bit much to ask to still be paying 4-5x more per game than movie DVD.

Smileyvirus

Games are expensive, but they are priced rather accordingly. After all, games are a luxury entertainment item, and how often we indulge incurs a cost. Today's AAA titles require huge amounts of money and time to create. The average price for video games hasn't changed much over the years. We're still paying relatively the same price for a current gen title that we were when the first Playstation was the pinnacle of modern gaming. Audience numbers have grown, along with expectations, and with better technology, production costs soar.

Comparing a new release game to the average DVD film simply isn't fair. Apples and oranges. DVD's are cheap, but they aren't nearly as important as theatrical sales for most film studios. A typical summer blockbuster film costs between 50 and 150 million to create, and those at least mildly successful gross between 100 to 500 million in theaters worldwide. For most films, the DVD is an after thought, and more DVD's are rented than they are bought. DVD's come 3-6 months after a film leaves theaters, and within 6-12 months winds up on cable TV and in some cases, syndication. Netflix and other streaming services are relevant too.

You're right that without used games, most retailers who rely on them would simply cease to exist. That would be disasterous, but I don't see how online passes will be the cause of that. The pass is a reason to buy new. An incentive. Its not about killing the used game industry. People can still buy used games. One can still buy a used game like Batman: Arkham City and play the game just fine without the 4 short stints where Catwoman is playable. If used gamer wants to play as Catwoman, then it will require a $10 pass. Not being able to play as the feline vixen is hardly so destructive as to make a game unplayable. But the choice is still there.

Even I have doubts about the availability of passes in the future. Will I be able to pick up X game used on ebay 10 years from now and have access to every piece of content? I hope so. That is something we'll find out, I guess. If there is enough demand for it, and there is a cost benefit for publishers to continue providing them, then I would think it be very likely. Passes for older games may even become cheaper. And my children's children may still have access to those small not-relevant-to-plot-in-any-way areas of Rage.

---------

Those who fear and hate online passes, and make threats of boycott and other such extremities, simply fail to realize that this is the state of the industry. Its silly to carry on as if developers and publishers are greedy and trying to rob every gamer for all they can. These are people who create games for a living. Anyone who has ever created anything in their lives, would understand this. Developers aren't evil, and most of them aren't extremely wealthy. In an industry dominated by used re-sales and piracy, the online pass is an incentive for consumers to choose a new copy. That's all.

Devs take a small piece of content and decide that its a bonus for new game buyers = an angry mob of gamers comes up with all sorts of ridiculous conspiracy thoeries. A "complete" game is and has always been a perception. A point of view. In the past when developers removed parts of a game during development, it was because they are cutting or removing content to shorten development time, or reduce costs. In other situations, ideas change during development. Does that mean that Final Fantasy X on PS2 is an incomplete game because Tidus doesn't have black hair and the camera can't be controlled? (See the early development footage of FFX on YouTube for more info.)

Without major publishers like EA, Capcom, THQ, Square-Enix and others, what is left?

Do we want a world with no games? A world where creating a AAA title like Skyrim or Dark Souls is simply no longer feasible because devs can't ensure they'll make a return on them?

A world of only free-to-play social games with microtransactions?

Because if more people are getting so upset about a sheet of paper with a 12-digit code, and less gamers buy new games, more of the industry is going to shift to social and mobile gaming, where they can draw in mainstream audiences on facebook and itunes, with games like Farmville and Angry Birds. Not because these companies are evil and money-grubbing, but because they need to make money to stay in business and continue creating products. If there's no more money in retail console and PC games, they will go where the money is.

The fear and hatred of online passes is likely to be around for some time, and it may be another 5 years of more, but I have faith most people will come to live with them.

At least until the days when physical media are over. Something I myself am not a fan of. I happen to love physical media, and enjoy the opportunity the used game markets provide me with old games. I'm a collector, with nearly 1500 games in my collection (I have a list here. Not exactly complete. It doesn't show some of the many variants and collector's/limited editions I have, and I haven't gotten around to sorting out games for some older platforms like NES, SNES and N64 = http://www.gamefaqs.com/users/_Hydan_/games)

Used games have never been a problem in the past and then suddenly it becomes a problem?; nah, that's a greedy move. Tell me which other market has problem with used products.

This wouldn't have happened if gamers didn't buy this online pass but like paid DLC most people don't value their money and accept anything a publisher does.

I blame Gamestop for this and everyone who bought used games from them. Honestly, if you only save 5 dollars better buy the original game.

Used games have never been a problem in the past and then suddenly it becomes a problem?; nah, that's a greedy move. Tell me which other market has problem with used products.

This wouldn't have happened if gamers didn't buy this online pass but like paid DLC most people don't value their money and accept anything a publisher does.

I blame Gamestop for this and everyone who bought used games from them. Honestly, if you only save 5 dollars better buy the original game.

Miroku32

The used game market simply wasn't so large or accessible in the past, and games cost far less money and time to develop in the past. There aren't many other industries where the major retailers sell used products alongside new products. In fact, an overwhelming majority of your local Gamestop/EbGames or GAME store is used games. And their staff are trained to remind customers that they can save money buying used.

Used copies of games are often out for sale within weeks of release, and this has nothing to do with the quality of the game, and how much content a game has can only ever go so far (Many devs see online multiplayer as a safe bet but even that doesn't always satisfy gamers).

When new copies of Game X are on shelves, and there are used copies available; what chance have those new copies got of selling without that pass?

Sure, the noble types will choose new because they like that new game smell, or they like manuals and don't want someone else's leftovers. But there clearly isn't enough of those people like me around to keep devs like Clover Studios (Okami only sold 600,000) and Team Bondi (LA Noire) in business.

First off, I'm going to say that I buy most of my games new. So it's not like I'm an avid advocate of used games.

HOWEVER, what I find extremely irritating is people on here like you defending online passes and DRM that is a part of many games. Why TC? Why do you feel the need to defend this?

I'm not going to make this long because I've talked about it in countless posts, but there is no reason why games should be any more exempt to a second-hand market than another product. If a person buys and a game and chooses to resell it, why should the publisher have the right to intervene?

Fact is publishers like to throw around numbers like " x number of lost sales because of used games" and other statistics that are complete speculation at best, horribly inaccurate bull**** at worst. If anything, the game industry is better off because of used games.

Yes I like to support the gaming industry, but I'm not going to bend over for them without saying anything when they treat paying customers like this.

Edit: Also I have no idea why everyone throws around the "save $5 at Gamestop" example all the time. Whenever I've bought a used game the savings generally are much better than $5. Hell, buying off Amazon I can sometimes get used games for $20-$30 off the new price.

First off, I'm going to say that I buy most of my games new. So it's not like I'm an avid advocate of used games.

HOWEVER, what I find extremely irritating is people on here like you defending online passes and DRM that is a part of many games. Why TC? Why do you feel the need to defend this?

I'm not going to make this long because I've talked about it in countless posts, but there is no reason why games should be any more exempt to a second-hand market than another product. If a person buys and a game and chooses to resell it, why should the publisher have the right to intervene?

Fact is publishers like to throw around numbers like " x number of lost sales because of used games" and other statistics that are complete speculation at best, horribly inaccurate bull**** at worst. If anything, the game industry is better off because of used games.

Yes I like to support the gaming industry, but I'm not going to bend over for them without saying anything when they treat paying customers like this.

Edit: Also I have no idea why everyone throws around the "save $5 at Gamestop" example all the time. Whenever I've bought a used game the savings generally are much better than $5. Hell, buying off Amazon I can sometimes get used games for $20-$30 off the new price.

Vari3ty

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

First off, I'm going to say that I buy most of my games new. So it's not like I'm an avid advocate of used games.

HOWEVER, what I find extremely irritating is people on here like you defending online passes and DRM that is a part of many games. Why TC? Why do you feel the need to defend this?

I'm not going to make this long because I've talked about it in countless posts, but there is no reason why games should be any more exempt to a second-hand market than another product. If a person buys and a game and chooses to resell it, why should the publisher have the right to intervene?

Fact is publishers like to throw around numbers like " x number of lost sales because of used games" and other statistics that are complete speculation at best, horribly inaccurate bull**** at worst. If anything, the game industry is better off because of used games.

Yes I like to support the gaming industry, but I'm not going to bend over for them without saying anything when they treat paying customers like this.

Edit: Also I have no idea why everyone throws around the "save $5 at Gamestop" example all the time. Whenever I've bought a used game the savings generally are much better than $5. Hell, buying off Amazon I can sometimes get used games for $20-$30 off the new price.

Ringx55

PC also has a rampant piracy issue which is the main reason DRM exists on the PC. Just because you PC snobs (or wait, I'm sorry, "glorious master gaming race") accepted such systems doesn't mean we have to like that such a system is being implemented on consoles.

I buy new games frequently, and I also buy used games frequently. I have no problem with online passes either.

I use Gamefly for a lot of my gaming purchases. Very often when a game comes out brand new, they'll send it to me and I get to try it out, and if I like it ( I usually do because I do research and know what I like from the start ) I'll buy it. I save anywhere from 5 to 10 dollars on a brand new game, the game was only "used" by me, so technically it's brand new.

I know a lot of people who buy used and new games, it just depends on what people perceive as valuable. If a game is worth $60 to someone, they'll usually buy it at that price. The problem is, so many games these days are not very valuable, and do not have much replay value. Too many games can be beaten in under 10 hours and rely on a gimmicky online portion to go along with a short single player campaign.

I always buy my games new but Online passes can kiss my a**, I'll never spend money on any game that has that attached to it. It's one of the reasons why I prefer Destructoid over Gamespot, theres too many clueless D-bags here who think they have to support the devs regardless of the fact they're selling you a game that your friends can't play online if you wanna lend it to them, you'll get less money for if you sell it and anyone renting it is gonna have to fork out more money just to play it online. Not to mention half the time the stupid codes don't even work with brand new games and old ones. The ones that really grind my gears are the ones that block out single player/offline ON-DISC content like Rage and Batman AC did effectively screwing every offline gamer, (before you say they should be online and get with the times realize that over half Xbox 360 owners are NOT online for various reasons) every offline gamer who purchased Batman AC only got 90% game content even though they paid 100% of the asking price as they locked Catwoman who is 10% of the games content and worse never even mentioned this until less than a week before launch day!

It's so obvious this is wrong on so many levels but I no longer bother debating this Online pass nonsense with anyone anymore, if you wanna think short term and are happy to see the future of gaming go down the toilet while supporting greedy devs who are double dipping and getting a second payment from a product they no longer own good for you. I'll just carry on avoiding every game I know that has Online pass and do my bit to support those games that don't have it

I've always been a supporter of game devs and buy all my games new, after a price drop of course. But it's kinda hard to argue that many of these devs arent hell bent on profits and feel the need to milk gamers for every penny. So from the prospective of a consumer, i can understand the frustration many gamers feel.

One of the main reasons for this is the mis-use of DLC. You've already shelled out 60 dollars for a brand new game and right at release there's a DLC pack that cost $10+ dollars and to add greater insult to injury the content is already on the disc(sometimes). DLC the way it was originally intended was a great way to expand a game beyond it's orignal design however devs have twisted into tool for extracting more money out of the pockets of poor joe gamer. And I just cant agree with this business model and unfortunately as a consumer, I'm left with two options, quit gaming altogether or buy used.

I'm sorry to detrailing your topic of online passes to DLC however I feel we need to look at the gaming landscape as a whole to determine why consumers are opting for used vs new. There are many contributing factors that lead gamers to the cheaper alternative. Personally I've always felt DRM in any form does nothing but hurt the consumer and I'll continue to avoid any game that supports it.

Honestly, publishers could probably push much harder DRM and shady business tactics than they are now, and still get away with it. They could probably charge $100 a game, lock half the content on disc as $30 DLC, included online passes for $10 to lock the other half, and force you to be logged into an account and remain online in order to play online and offline games alike, just so they can make sure that you actually bought their product, similar to what Blizzard does with Starcraft II.

Unfortunately, this is just the beginning. People that have a voice and disdain for these kinds of practices are in the minority. The majority of gamers in the world will simply not care, and continue to buy more and more games. As long as those people exist and continue to buy more and more games, the publishers will up the ante. I don't think it is nearly as bad now as what it could be and most likely will be in the future.

My only question for the OP is: which company do you work for? Take 2, Ubisoft, EA?

And the argument that Joe Average gamer who buys a used game is greedy is, well, so laughable, it's not

even worth a response.

Online passes? Dear Lord, is everyone who works at these companies suffering from Autism or Asperger's, with

no feel whatsoever for what customers - who are more than willing to separate themselves from their money - want?

Wow. This should be posted as a article on the front page here at gamespot. One of the best written pieces & well thought out statements i've ever read. It really gives people something to think about. I actually agree with all of it as well. I hope everybody read the entire piece rather than just skimmed through it.

I really like what you have to say about Joe gamer. There really are alot of problems with the consumers these days & a lot of the problems in the game industry i would blame on the consumer

Consumers drive the industry yet i feel they are killing it as well. They dont even realize the effect they have & their horrible ways. I love how you were able to point the finger back at the consumer when its so easy for them to point it elsewhere but never see themselves & their ways as a problem.

Why not buy used games? They are cheaper.

Think of it this way. Why is the specific game being sold back to Gamestop? Because the gamer thought the game sucked. If developers would just be more creative with their games, instead of trying to copy each other, maybe people would hold on to their games causing other people to buy new copies because their isn't any used copies to buy.

ristactionjakso

Why not buy used games? They are cheaper.

Think of it this way. Why is the specific game being sold back to Gamestop? Because the gamer thought the game sucked. If developers would just be more creative with their games, instead of trying to copy each other, maybe people would hold on to their games causing other people to buy new copies because their isn't any used copies to buy.

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

Why not buy used games? They are cheaper.

Think of it this way. Why is the specific game being sold back to Gamestop? Because the gamer thought the game sucked. If developers would just be more creative with their games, instead of trying to copy each other, maybe people would hold on to their games causing other people to buy new copies because their isn't any used copies to buy.

campzor