[QUOTE="LeifLongbottom"]

[QUOTE="JoKeR_421"]see this is what i dont get. ppl complain, but they never put themselves in the company's shoes. they need that so when u buy the game new u have nothing to worry about basically unless u buy it used. they need to see something back. they dont see anything back in used games. now i get it yea im all against the whole online code thing. i mean i want my money to go to the developers for making a great game so they can keep supporting it and make better games. when ppl buy used games ( i do too sometimes ) they dont see anything so they keep losing. again put urself in their shoes i promise u, that ud do the same, or come up with a way to make sure u still profit from the game, i mean they even went out of their way and said all DLCs that are coming out for the game will be FREE. JoKeR_421

You see, now THAT is an incentive to NOT trade in your game; that's smart. Get what the CoD fans are paying $15 for, for free; it's not all the dlc by the way, just the maps that are free. I get that the company wants to sell more new copies because that's where the profit comes from. I just think that most regular consumers would prefer publishers use the carrot (free dlc/incentive to not trade in) rather than the stick ($10 punishment for buying used) and would end up buying more new games if that were the case.

As someone who used to buy used, people who buy used do sometimes buy new games and get them as gifts as well. It would be in publishers' best interest for those gamers to play the most compelling parts of their games so that those gamers feel more inclined to buy future installments at launch. So it seems to me that they're putting the long term growth of the industry at risk in order to make a quick buck now.

Really? You know 3 to 1 aint bad as used sales go. I know that's just your personal experience (but baring in mind you work at a GS which in my experience is very "hard-selling" on the used merch) and not a picture of the whole market but the way publishers have been carrying on, I thought the used market had much higher sales.

But as MonkeySpot has pointed out, we are kind of in their shoes: The consumers aren't the ones making big profits out of the used game market (in fact, the last time I looked, GS gave very little value for trade ins and sells used titles for $2 short of new so that's actually a loss on the consumer) but they're being asked to pay for it anyway. It's like we're getting taxed for the huge profits others are making.

But regardless of the fairness of the whole online pass system (my argument originally wasn't so much about the fairness of the system) my argument is that in the long term, the online pass will shoot publishers in the foot if such a big portion of the market (people not interested in paying another $10 for a borrowed, rented, or used game) does not get to play the most compelling parts of the game. It's just not a way to expand the market and really (when you consider how fewer consoles they've moved) expanding the market is what they should be trying to do right now. Penny wize and pound foolish.

[QUOTE="LeifLongbottom"]

[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]

I don't think it's counter intuitive at all. It makes sure that the people playing on PSN paid to play the games multiplayer. Used games are bad for the industry. When someone buys a used game no money goes to the to made the game or the people that produced and published that game. People just need to grow up and pay for things that they want. I want my money going to the people that produced, published and developed these games I enjoy so much.

ElectronicMagic

I like to see my money go to the people who made it too which is why I buy my games new... now that money isn't an issue for me anymore. When it was, I bought used and if that option wasn't there, I probably wouldn't even have a console now because I probably couldn't have afforded to get into it when I had the time to.

However, I like to try out a game first by either borrowing or renting because I don't have a lot of time to play now; so I'm picky about what I buy and "get in to". If the most compelling part of the gameplay is locked away, it's unlikely that I'll buy the game.

There's nothing wrong with them trying to get used purchasers to buy new instead, I just think they could be a lot smarter about it and do it in a way so that they don't also lose sales.

Also, you should know that the most affluent "grounups" I know always try and buy things at the lowest price possible. I don't think the blame lies so much with the consumer as with the publishers being lazy in strtegizing how their products are sold.

I understand what you are saying, but there are many different websites and magazines that review games. If someone wants to know how good a game is they have more that a dozen different professional journalistic places they can go to get a sense on how the game plays online and whether or not it's fun. Then there are the millions of gamers themselves that review games on amazon and such that can help someone pick out a game. All I know is that I don't want the games industry turning into the anime industry where people stop buying from the people that make the stuff and get it for free or for cheap by some one/store/website causing companies that were the giants of that industry crumble(ADV, Geneon, Bandai Visual). I don't want to wake up and hear the same thing because gamers are buying all their games used and not a cent is getting back to the publishers who paid the developers to create the games we all love so much to play.

But once again, it seems like the problem publishers have isn't so much with the consumer as it is with the exploitive practices of certain businesses. Maybe they should be working out something with them...perhaps charge them the $10. There are always going to be consumers trying to get what others have for less money and there are alwaus going to be businesses that try and get as much money as possible out of the average consumer. Nothing can change that.

As for reviews; I prefer trying it out first: renting/borrowing. Reviews are fine for finding out how a game works but like I said, I'm kind of picky. So I find that a lot of times all the reviewers rave about a game that I find only mildly entertaining...or sometimes just plain awful. Listening to reviewers is how I ended up buying No More Heroes. That's something I wish I had rented.

see this is what i dont get. ppl complain, but they never put themselves in the company's shoes. they need that so when u buy the game new u have nothing to worry about basically unless u buy it used. they need to see something back. they dont see anything back in used games. now i get it yea im all against the whole online code thing. i mean i want my money to go to the developers for making a great game so they can keep supporting it and make better games. when ppl buy used games ( i do too sometimes ) they dont see anything so they keep losing. again put urself in their shoes i promise u, that ud do the same, or come up with a way to make sure u still profit from the game, i mean they even went out of their way and said all DLCs that are coming out for the game will be FREE. JoKeR_421

You see, now THAT is an incentive to NOT trade in your game; that's smart. Get what the CoD fans are paying $15 for, for free; it's not all the dlc by the way, just the maps that are free. I get that the company wants to sell more new copies because that's where the profit comes from. I just think that most regular consumers would prefer publishers use the carrot (free dlc/incentive to not trade in) rather than the stick ($10 punishment for buying used) and would end up buying more new games if that were the case.

As someone who used to buy used, people who buy used do sometimes buy new games and get them as gifts as well. It would be in publishers' best interest for those gamers to play the most compelling parts of their games so that those gamers feel more inclined to buy future installments at launch. So it seems to me that they're putting the long term growth of the industry at risk in order to make a quick buck now.

[QUOTE="LeifLongbottom"]

[QUOTE="finalserenade75"]

I'm almost certain that they've done tons of research and have based their decision on mathematical formulae at this point. They realize that they're losing some sales because of it, but probably gaining much more and hence why they're doing it. An opinion of individuals who are simply assuming won't change their minds, and frankly I doubt that opinion is as enlightened as Sony's (Sony's being based on studies).

MethodManFTW

You'd like to think so but at this point there's not much to base those studies on.

Based on the fact that Sony has sold a HELL of a lot less PS3s as they had PS2s at this point in the console cycle, I would have to call their current strategies into question.

Did I say that online pass was the reason why? I just said that Sony's studies seem to be way off...unless they've been trying to shrink their market this gen.

However, (once again) if they did make it more compelling for PS2 owners to be PS3 owners, I think it would lead to much more new game sales than online passes.

I'm almost certain that they've done tons of research and have based their decision on mathematical formulae at this point. They realize that they're losing some sales because of it, but probably gaining much more and hence why they're doing it. An opinion of individuals who are simply assuming won't change their minds, and frankly I doubt that opinion is as enlightened as Sony's (Sony's being based on studies).

finalserenade75

You'd like to think so but at this point there's not much to base those studies on.

Based on the fact that Sony has sold a HELL of a lot less PS3s as they had PS2s at this point in the console cycle, I would have to call their current strategies into question.

Perhaps the best way to get more people to buy new games would be to make it more compelling for people who have ps2s & Wiis to buy a PS3. With more PS3 owners out there, there would be more people buying new games. My point is that while it is possible that they make slightly more money this yearwith this online pass thing, it doesn't do anything for the long term growth of the consumer base except shrink it.

I don't think Sony is worried about it.MethodManFTW

I don't think it's counter intuitive at all. It makes sure that the people playing on PSN paid to play the games multiplayer. Used games are bad for the industry. When someone buys a used game no money goes to the to made the game or the people that produced and published that game. People just need to grow up and pay for things that they want. I want my money going to the people that produced, published and developed these games I enjoy so much.

ElectronicMagic

I like to see my money go to the people who made it too which is why I buy my games new... now that money isn't an issue for me anymore. When it was, I bought used and if that option wasn't there, I probably wouldn't even have a console now because I probably couldn't have afforded to get into it when I had the time to.

However, I like to try out a game first by either borrowing or renting because I don't have a lot of time to play now; so I'm picky about what I buy and "get in to". If the most compelling part of the gameplay is locked away, it's unlikely that I'll buy the game.

There's nothing wrong with them trying to get used purchasers to buy new instead, I just think they could be a lot smarter about it and do it in a way so that they don't also lose sales.

Also, you should know that the most affluent "grounups" I know always try and buy things at the lowest price possible. I don't think the blame lies so much with the consumer as with the publishers being lazy in strtegizing how their products are sold.

I'd buy it. I got a hell of a lot of play out of JC2.

They also had a very decent pre-order incentive: a very compelling demo along with pre-order bonus dlc of a weird vehicle. That make a hell of a lot more sense than locking game content (or a whole effin game mode) behind a $10 pass.

It was a nice feature in Warhawk (unfortunate that it isn't in many other titles) I was just wondering if they carried it on.

So I hear that Starhawk has online pass and no I'm not surprised at this point.

The thing is that I hear that the campaign is pretty weak so it seems a bit counter-intuitive to have the most compelling content (the content that would inspire a renter or borrower to buy their own copy) locked away behind a $10 pass. Also, how likely would a used purchaser pay an extra $10 if they weren't impressed with the single player portion? I know I never buy regular dlc for games I'm unimpressed with.

It reminds me of the BF3 vs MW3 thing that was going on back in November: I rented BF3 and borrowed MW3 both soon after their launch. I think I played BF3 first but the single player campaign was weak & I wasn't going to pay an extra $10 for a rental so I sent it back. I borrowed MW3 like a week later when a neighbor who had just bought it went on a trip. I got to play the single player & multiplayer content, both of which were a lot of fun; mind you I only own one other CoD game so it's not quite as stale for me as it seems to be getting for others. However, in my short experience with both of them, I had the most fun with MW3 and the variety of modes it had so that was the one that I purchased. I totally understand (why) they want to discourage used sales but they should find a way that doesn't discourage some of us from buying new copies.

What Sony (and EA) should take from this is that online pass can also cost you sales.