GameStop also gives you 10% off of used games and accessories if you have their card and game informer subscription. As a former GameStop employee I know it's rare for someone to pass up the used copy and especially harder when we convince them to get the card or if they already have it anyway.

So if there's only a $5-10 and your assumption that people will normally pop the difference for the new one, why are online passes even necessary then? Doesn't it sound just a little bit illogical?

People will always go for the cheapest option. If they can choose between a new copy at $60 or a used copy at $55, they will go for the used copy unless there's incentive to buy the new one. Online passes provide that incentive. Seems pretty logical to me.

Gamers who are used to waiting a while to buy games at a substantial discount are not likely willing to shell out the full price.

This is true. However, I don't think it applies to the majority of people who buy used games. I believe the majority of used game buyers buy their games a week or so after release. That's about as long as it takes for GameStop to start getting a relatively constant supply of used copies. At that point, the used copies will only be $5 less than new copies.

In addition to stifling the used market, online passes will help reduce rentals. Publishers only tolerate rentals because they still make some money from it, which is better than the non-existent profit they see from used sales.

I like giving my money to developers as well, but it's not my goal in life, and I have bills to pay. If I can buy a game for less with no substantial difference than all the better. That used game now has a home and someone with more money can buy the shiny new version. This is not some shady, back alley deals we're talking about here people, and there's no sense in demonizing the used market. Used games are bought just like regular ones-they don't appear out of no where and I doubt they travel back and forth enough from owner to reseller and back to cause as much loss as publishers claim.

The morality of used sales is pretty subjective (as morality tends to be). In effect, it's the same as piracy in that you are getting a copy of the game without paying anything to the publisher or developer. Sure, you're giving your money to GameStop or some other seller, but none of that money makes its way to the people actually responsible for creating the game. Now, you can (and many do) argue that the money consumers save from used sales goes towards new sales that otherwise wouldn't have happened, but this logic fails to acknowledge that publishers and developers are not part of one, homogenous entity. Buying a used copy of Psychonauts, selling it and then using that money towards a new copy of CoD 2012 does not help Double Fine at all. You might as well have stolen a copy of Psychonauts because Double Fine didn't see any money from your transactions either way.

[VG]Reagle wrote on Feb 4, 2012, 14:35:

Publishers are just making a stink about it now because they think, erroneously, that it cuts into their bottom line. Except it doesn't, AT ALL. (Much like piracy to an extent)

So you don't think piracy cuts into the bottom line. I agree lets not worry about things like facts when we can just say whatever garbaage spouts out of our asses.

I said to AN EXTANT. Of course piracy affects overall sales, but I'm also sure there's some out there that pirate that would buy the game if such avenues were closed to them, but for most of them that are used to getting their games for free, they wouldn't buy the game, they'd just look somewhere else. I've also known people using pirated copies essentially as demos and have bought the game because of doing so, in that sense it can even help their sales.

Jerykk wrote on Feb 4, 2012, 23:42:

People who are going to buy used games will always buy used games and those who prefer to buy new will continue to buy new. It's as simple as that.

Except I don't think it actually is that simple. The people who buy used games from GameStop typically only save $5-10 on average. If used copies were not available, would they be just as likely to pay an extra $5-10 for a new copy? I'd say yes. This isn't like piracy, where pirated copies cost nothing and there's no risk or investment required. If someone is willing to pay $55 for a used game, chances are pretty good that they'd pay $60 for a new copy of that same game.

Personally, I don't support used sales because I want to give my money to the developers, not the seller of the used copy. I think it's safe to assume that someone who buys used games is far more likely to buy new games than someone who pirates games, so the potential impact of used sales is far greater than the potential impact of piracy.

So if there's only a $5-10 and your assumption that people will normally pop the difference for the new one, why are online passes even necessary then? Doesn't it sound just a little bit illogical?

I am however specifically talking about when the price difference of used games are greater. Gamers who are used to waiting a while to buy games at a substantial discount are not likely willing to shell out the full price. I think this is a pretty fair bet. Publishers may have the right to sell their product at what ever price they want, but they certainly don't have the right to regulate the market once their product has left their hands.

I like giving my money to developers as well, but it's not my goal in life, and I have bills to pay. If I can buy a game for less with no substantial difference than all the better. That used game now has a home and someone with more money can buy the shiny new version. This is not some shady, back alley deals we're talking about here people, and there's no sense in demonizing the used market. Used games are bought just like regular ones-they don't appear out of no where and I doubt they travel back and forth enough from owner to reseller and back to cause as much loss as publishers claim. If anything, publishers adding in a almost hidden fee into used games that gamers must pay to fully use their purchase seems much shadier to me.

People who are going to buy used games will always buy used games and those who prefer to buy new will continue to buy new. It's as simple as that.

Except I don't think it actually is that simple. The people who buy used games from GameStop typically only save $5-10 on average. If used copies were not available, would they be just as likely to pay an extra $5-10 for a new copy? I'd say yes. This isn't like piracy, where pirated copies cost nothing and there's no risk or investment required. If someone is willing to pay $55 for a used game, chances are pretty good that they'd pay $60 for a new copy of that same game.

Personally, I don't support used sales because I want to give my money to the developers, not the seller of the used copy. I think it's safe to assume that someone who buys used games is far more likely to buy new games than someone who pirates games, so the potential impact of used sales is far greater than the potential impact of piracy.

Beamer wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 14:35:
What does Steam really, honestly give us?
1) Very easy buying
2) Major sales all the time

All my games accessible in one place from any compatible computer with just one name/password login and a small client download.

Reliable automatic patching.

Easy installation.

Publishers are just making a stink about it now because they think, erroneously, that it cuts into their bottom line. Except it doesn't, AT ALL. (Much like piracy to an extent)

So you don't think piracy cuts into the bottom line. I agree lets not worry about things like facts when we can just say whatever garbaage spouts out of our asses.

hb3d wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 19:35:

DrEvil wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 12:31:
But they're crossing a line I won't tolerate when they start doing that for single-player games.

I agree. The biggest problem for the game consumer with the online-unlock for single-player games comes down to the availability and longevity of the unlock. When THQ goes out of business, are its unlock codes still going to work? When EA drops online support for its games after a year or so like it usually does, are its unlock codes still going to work? When Microsoft cuts off the xbox360 from xbox live sometime after its next console is released like it did with he original xbox, are the unlock codes for the xbox360 games still going to work? Of course the likely answer to these situations will be "no."

Given that popular retro games are still played today, the best of today's games will also still be in demand tomorrow at least among classic game enthusiasts. But, due to online passes and such tomorrow's retro games may not be fully playable or even playable at all.

THIS. Used game sales have been around FOREVER. Publishers are just making a stink about it now because they think, erroneously, that it cuts into their bottom line. Except it doesn't, AT ALL. (Much like piracy to an extent)

People who are going to buy used games will always buy used games and those who prefer to buy new will continue to buy new. It's as simple as that. the ONLY thing this will due is make them LESS profit because people will either: 1-Not buy it at all because they don't want to put up with and support this online pass BS or 2-They'll just wait for the price to drop even lower before buying making it a completely pointless maneuver on their part.

If they want us to buy new, then they have to put more value into the packaging, (decent manuals anyone) more extras and other incentives that don't rely on a sketchy online activation process that may or may not be there when I decide to buy their game in the future.

Glad to not have set foot in a gamestop in over 3 years.

Fuck this nonsense.

avianflu wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 14:17:

The game industry would love to get rid of physical media completely so that a lot of distinctions folks here are making regarding "disks" would not mean anything any more.

Exactly. The debate about the value of extras and physical media is rapidly getting closer and closer to being a moot point. I understand that it is an issue at this point (albeit an extremely minor one) but not for much longer.

I'm not particularly against used game sales except that used game sales hurt the game industry far worse than how used clothes sales hurt the clothing industry.

Gocows wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 19:48:
Is the best part. Those consumers will loose so much from not having that online pass.

Online passes aren't restricted to online content.

"What about people who don’t have a console hooked up to the Internet — which is still a significant amount of consumers?"

Is the best part. Those consumers will loose so much from not having that online pass.

DrEvil wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 12:31:
But they're crossing a line I won't tolerate when they start doing that for single-player games.

I agree. The biggest problem for the game consumer with the online-unlock for single-player games comes down to the availability and longevity of the unlock. When THQ goes out of business, are its unlock codes still going to work? When EA drops online support for its games after a year or so like it usually does, are its unlock codes still going to work? When Microsoft cuts off the xbox360 from xbox live sometime after its next console is released like it did with he original xbox, are the unlock codes for the xbox360 games still going to work? Of course the likely answer to these situations will be "no."

Given that popular retro games are still played today, the best of today's games will also still be in demand tomorrow at least among classic game enthusiasts. But, due to online passes and such tomorrow's retro games may not be fully playable or even playable at all.

This comment was edited on Feb 3, 2012, 19:40.

Cutter wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 16:34:

Mash, you should know better for most that they do keep making money on parts...for many years to come. Hell, they make more on parts over the years than they do the actual initial car sale.

True. Except I can buy cars with a warranty(and used cars with a warranty), and I don't have to buy 'name' brand parts. Not even for new cars that just rolled off the lot. I can buy non OEM parts and cut the loop right out and under from the automakers and give my money to someone else. Actually, if the trade laws that are in effect now, weren't. You wouldn't even have a trade market outside of OEM-knockoff parts. The reason that you have OEM parts is because when nafta was signed, one of the stipulations was all car companies must make auto parts for their vehicles for 7 years.

This comment was edited on Feb 3, 2012, 19:57.

Cutting out multiplayer and locking it up behind an "online pass" is completely unacceptable. What's next, selling multiplayer independently from the rest of the game? ("Bundle now and SAVE!")

The annoying thing is that it's going to target the wrong people too. It won't hurt Gamestop, as they'll continue to sell used games at $5 off. But it will hurt the people who buy used games who don't realize they're going to be missing out on content unless the cough up more money.

Sure, in the long run, it might cut down on used sales when everyone wises up to the new tactic, but short term it's going to hurt consumers. And if publishers think consumers will blame Gamestop for it, rather than themselves, well, they're going to be in for a surprise.

PHJF wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 16:43:
Cutting out multiplayer and locking it up behind an "online pass" is completely unacceptable. What's next, selling multiplayer independently from the rest of the game? ("Bundle now and SAVE!")

This. Punishing is stupid, they should give people incentive and provide a reason to hang onto your game instead of selling it.

attacks! attacks! attacks!

And you just want to be an asshole and tell other people what they mean with their comments and then state you dont want to "e-fight" about it. Talk about passive aggressive. Don't start trying to tell me what I'm saying or how to say it, or this discussion will turn into something neither of us want it to. If you want to get personal because you can't handle someone criticizing your over simplification of the issue and obvious misunderstanding of my viewpoint, then we are done talking.

Haha, holy overreaction batman. Yeah again no, I was making a pretty simple point based on one thing you said and I even went out of my way to point out where I agreed with you on other points. You got all uppity over nothing and I'm not the one calling people names here.

You are arguing with me for the sake of arguing, typical Verno bullshit. I'm not debating trade-in value. I'm debating what the benefit is of paying $55 for a used game instead of $60 for a new game has for me the consumer when I know that the Pubs/Devs will not see a dime of that and I will likely not even get everything in that used box as I would the new box. Something you have yet to even touch on. To me there is ZERO benefit, and you have yet to explain how you think it's worth it.

Ignoring the silliness...everyone is just discussing the general topic, not arguing. I already explained how I feel about used games twice even and as for the rest, the discussion is going to flow and it's not just going to be about what you want. I didn't even make a reference to trade in values so I have no idea where that comes from, I was talking about consumer perception of value on both sides of the issue. Geesh!

Once the publishers start paying rent and all the associated costs of a brick and mortar retailer than they're entitled to a share of the resale. Untill then, no.

Without condoning or condemning what publishers are doing by offering "free" DLC when you buy new, the issue that has people up in arms is that the publishers are building wear and obsolescence into the product. It's the intentional nature of it that is pissing people off. Cars and fridges wear through time, but digital products do not.

Notice that they are making it "separate" DLC to skirt the issue of whether it's part of the product or not. What will be really interesting is when some publisher tries to make you enter a code to finish the last third of the game, and used copies will have to pay an extra $15 just to finish the game. Then we'll see some lawsuit and get a judgement on whether this is actually legal or not.

PHJF wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 16:43:

The best solution is something that rewards buying new but doesn't punish those not. A free piece of DLC included in every box should do this, so long as it's truly DLC and not something missing from the game. A free extraneous mission, free vehicle, whatever. As if Oblivion had come with Knights of the Nine bundled in.

Hey hey, for once I actually agree with you. This is the current path single-player games seem to be taking. Arkham City came with some totally disposable Catwoman stuff.

Cutting out multiplayer and locking it up behind an "online pass" is completely unacceptable. What's next, selling multiplayer independently from the rest of the game? ("Bundle now and SAVE!")

Disposable, but too well integrated to not really be considered part of the full package.