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?

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 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.

[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.

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

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.

Gocows wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 19:48:
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.

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.

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!")

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!")

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.

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.

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!")