Game Store Owner protests online pass for used games

[kipperthefrog]

vid 1

 

vid 2

 

"EA’s measure would tie online game-play to codes that come with select new titles, meaning that purchasers of used games, which feature Online Pass, would need to shell out $10.00 for a new code in order to play online."

~gamepolitics.com

This will hurt the used game industry and your ability to buy and trade used games with cost effectiveness. you wont get as much for your used games you turn in, and those who buy the game used won't be able to play online features unless you fork over an extra 10 bucks.

 

Online passes will only benefit EA. This is their attempt to line their pockets and discourage the trade of used games. They act like they will "enhance online services" but you will actually get the same services you would get regardless. They just want to make you pay an extra 10 bucks to get features that already come with games. EA can't stand stores making money off used games. watch vids for more details. He explains it better.

 

Please spread the word to every forum, blog and site you know. If EA's experiment works, This will become the standard of all games. boycott games that feature online passes.

[Darth Avlectus]

Most people with eyes see what's going on and that it is complete bull****.

 

I don't think most game producer companies would shoot themselves in the foot so easily: NOT everyone prefers doing it online. NOT everyone CAN do it online. Unfortunately special privileges go hand in hand with compliance AKA V.I.P. status for customers who do it the way the company wants.

 

I agree that IF this took root, this is just another way to squeeze people who refuse to do it the way the company wants. The only way I would think something like this could be fought (besides customer protest and chain stores boycotting the products) is to try to see if this business practice falls under the definition of a trust. I'm pretty sure it doesn't, though, because it is only this company. If it were to be done by multiple companies, then it might go somewhere.

 

This does raise a good point, though. Game chains and physical stores (which IIRC sell MOST of the actual gaming goods) would begin protesting the practice as unfair. Think stores like Target, Wal-Mart, GameStop, Fry's Electronics, Radio Shack, Best Buy, and a number of other places. I could see a lawsuit happening if this trend were to begin picking up. But then again, what do I know? I can barely predict my own future, let alone the weather or movements of an industry.

 

At what point does one begin to evaluate the downside to cutting out the middle-man?

[Kurgan]

See, I want to have the option to buy a game on physical media in a real brick and mortar store, a used store, if I want. I want to be able to sell back my used game (or give it away) if I want. I want to be able to make a backup copy in case it ever breaks (or to save wear on the original media). I want to be able to play it online, even years after the company has stopped caring about the game, or even if the company goes out of business. This was pretty much universally possible until fairly recently.

 

I understand they want to minimize potential piracy and maximize profits, but this is just ridiculous. It simply breeds contempt for the companies, which hurts them more in the end. Not everyone is going to buy brand new games online or verify them online. Just as an aside, I don't own any "steam" based games. I never "registered" my games, even when it was just an option (my friends did and they only ever got spam for their trouble).

[Alexrd]

See, I want to have the option to buy a game on physical media in a real brick and mortar store, a used store, if I want. I want to be able to sell back my used game (or give it away) if I want. I want to be able to make a backup copy in case it ever breaks (or to save wear on the original media). I want to be able to play it online, even years after the company has stopped caring about the game, or even if the company goes out of business. This was pretty much universally possible until fairly recently.

 

I understand they want to minimize potential piracy and maximize profits, but this is just ridiculous. It simply breeds contempt for the companies, which hurts them more in the end. Not everyone is going to buy brand new games online or verify them online. Just as an aside, I don't own any "steam" based games. I never "registered" my games, even when it was just an option (my friends did and they only ever got spam for their trouble).

 

My opinion too. Nowadays, gaming and games are dependable on the internet, online servers or steam-like software. Stupidest thing ever. There is no assurance that you can play the same game you buy nowadays in a few years (or decades) thanks to this akward business model...

[Darth Avlectus]

^^^

Well, true and evaluating old games...NES, Atari, NEC turbographix, X68000, Sears arcade machines...still around. Still playable.

 

What has happened to some is that it has lost patents and became either public domain, or it was bought out by someone else. Hell, that sounds cool, buying a gaming company that went under, and all its assets.

 

@ topic: continuing on... I did the steam thing. It isn't so bad. However, it's impractical to assume it will move this way in such a significant way much more than it already is. Consoles will never truly be replaced. IMO there are more loyalists in the overall gaming population that believe console is truly is "where it's at". IIRC awhile back someone tried to have this whole campaign for a product to replace the console and all games with one device with connection to a worldwide network. It failed for the same reason it would fail today. People want hard copies. The lag = frustration.

 

Such a thing as steam requires paypal or credit card. Even if you can validate a throw-away credit card easily at K Mart and do it all like that 1-2-3, a-b-c, frankly computer gamers are still a small population among gamers as a whole, though super serious computer gamers will more than likely have steam. Point being, most people outside that sub-population don't even want to bother with it. Too much hassle. Don't care anyways.

 

Some will do it ant the rest won't, it's as simple as that. Period.

[Alexrd]

^^^

Well, true and evaluating old games...NES, Atari, NEC turbographix, X68000, Sears arcade machines...still around. Still playable.

 

That's right. I will never understand this internet dependency. Everyone praises Steam, but they forget that their game collections are all dependable on a bunch of servers, and when the servers shut down (and sooner or later they will), there will be no games to play. Not to mention the DRM that Steam is.

[Darth Avlectus]

^^^Well, I don't know about ALL of them though that's probably almost certainly true for most of them if/when steam ever bites the dust down the road. Well, I guess the best understanding I can offer is satisfying impulsivity and people downloading it to their computers getting around having to deal with discs. . If you have a backup drive, I don't see how it should be that big a problem for standalone games and stuff.

 

ValvE games will continue to be carried by the company in that scenario--of this I am pretty sure. IIRC they have even said as much to these concerns. Though I don't like having to register the games.

 

I would think that some of the game developers would make their own websites and revive their games. Those will be the ones to survive, the rest would be S.O.L. though. (I'm telling you, BUY the patents of the ones you like. That way you'll own it in part if not in whole and can play it anytime, even make money off it.)