{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/16/2013 8:03:19 PM
13
I'm genuinely curious: why do people hate online passes so much?
Your game comes with one to start so you're not "paying for multiplayer", you can still resell the game, AND the publisher/developer can make a small amount of profit that otherwise would have only gone to gamestop or another second-hand retailer.
I really don't understand. Is it on principal? Should developers not make [i]any[/i] money on used copies then? What is the problem?
The only (moderately) legitimate reason I've seen is that it hinder "borrowing/renting", but that's generally not the case, because most games give you essentially a trial of the multiplayer if you don't have a pass.
So, what is the problem with them? Locking them to one Gamertag? Most digital games and [i]all[/i] steam games do this. You don't hear about this with those.
English
-
Edited by tntbabin: 5/17/2013 5:06:38 PMOnline passes are terrible for alot of reasons. Take my brother, my father, and I for example. We have 3 consoles in the house but don't wanna buy 2 or 3 copies of every frigging game we buy. Maybe I wanna try out my brothers' copy of Mass Effect 3' s multiplayer, guess what? Can't cause online pass. We were finally able to move the pass from his console to mine, leaving it attached ti his account(and now can't move anything else for 4 months). It was a HUGE pain in the arss. It makes borrowing and sharing difficult. Also, yes, it is in part principle. The devs should make absolutely NOTHING from a used game sale. The game was sold once and the devs made their money off that copy, they should not be able to make money off the same copy MULTIPLE times. Especially when the locked part of the game (multiplayer) is pretty much all the game has *cough Battlefield 3 *cough. Yes, 10$ to access part of the game the game that shouldn't be locked to begin with is ridiculous.
-
That's asinine. It's the same way with all PC games, with all downloaded games, etc. And most games, as I said, have a trial of the multiplayer included without the pass - so borrowing/renting are completely unaffected. And why should the devs make nothing on used games? You want to support Gamestop more than the people who made that game? If there is a cheaper copy out there, a lot of people are more tempted to buy it. This means that copies that normally would be sold and net the people who made the game will now receive nothing - since you wanted to save $5. All the while Gamestop - who doesn't provide you with any games of their own and frequently rip off patrons by offering piss poor amounts for "trade ins" rolls around in your cash. And as I said - You pay absolutely nothing more if you buy the game new. Online passes only affect used games, because in any other situation there is adequate support in most cases.
-
Edited by tntbabin: 5/18/2013 3:03:44 AMIt's not about whether or not buying a used game is supporting GameStop or "GameStop vs devs". It's the principle of the matter. It can be VERY inconvenient for the consumer, if someone wants to trade games with a friend or sell a game to someone they know, guess what? No online! Wanna share games with someone you live with or near? No online! Why should someone be punished for purchasing a used game that's ridiculous! Someone decided your game wasn't worth a shit or didn't appeal to them and took it back, however, you've already made your money from the copy, why should you make more money from the same copy? What are you talking about games with multiplayer trials? I'm sure they exist, but I've yet to see one. Also like to mention that GameStop isn't the only game store out there that sells used games. There are others out there that deserve support very much("The Score", where I live).
-
Saints row 3 needed a $10 pass to play 2 player coop...
-
you also need two copies of the game, do you not? And if you bought those copies new, you'd have 2 codes. So, no.
-
If someone bought the game used they would have to pay $10 to play it.
-
And? You would factor that cost into the cost of purchasing the game. So, if a new version was $60, and a used was $45, then buying used gives you a $5 discount total after pass. If the used copy was $55, then you would just buy new. So, you argument is you don't want to have to use some simple math then? But if you buy used, you are not helping out the developer or publisher.
-
When you buy anything used you don't have to pay the developer I don't see what makes games an exception.
-
So because that's how it's always been, it should stay that way? That's the argument they used to keep slaves, too.
-
lol comparing slavery to developers attempting to squeeze money outta their customers nice.
-
All I'm saying is you have absolutely no argument whatsoever.
-
Well for one it failed. That's one argument. 2) nobody else charges for secondary purchases, because it would fail.
-
Edited by Coup de Grace: 5/16/2013 9:07:40 PM
