RockyRan Posted September 4, 2011 Report Share Posted September 4, 2011 (edited) Yeah, I was thinking about that the other day. At least on the 360, you're already paying on online multiplayer in general because the vast majority of online titles are handled by Xbox Live, which has a subscription fee. You're already paying for that and buying it used doesn't incur any additional costs on their part. On the PS3 and PC it's a bit more of a grey area, especially on the PC since a lot of titles have dedicated servers that cost the developer $0 to run while some have GFWL, Steamworks, etc. It would only be true on the PS3, and even then it's a stretch because when a game is sold to someone else the developer still has to cater only to that one user, not additional users. Edited September 4, 2011 by RockyRan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuchikoma Posted September 4, 2011 Report Share Posted September 4, 2011 I am actually quite alright with online play being included in the (regular) new price, and being a paid ticket on used copies. I look at things like DRM from the perspective of long-term collection. This does not take anything out of the game in the long run because the servers that would track your license to play and the ones you'd play on are related, if not one in the same. When they shut down the servers for multiplayer, your pass to play it expires regardless, and no single player content is tied to this plan. Nope. EA is the only company that runs their own servers(on console). And even then the online-pass tracking servers will not be the ones running the multiplayer. And not all of these pass things are tied to multiplayer games, for example Cerberus Network on Mass Effect 2. btw anyone know the bit where we discussed used sales not costing any extra for multiplayer? So are you saying that authentication servers may go down before game hosting servers? My point was that they'd run in parallel, so the multiplayer experience shouldn't be any shorter for using a ticket system vs hosting any and everyone with the game. Don't know what Cerberus Network is... but I was talking about systems that ARE tied to multiplayer games, so an exception like that isn't so much an exception as it is an unrelated case... I'd absolutely agree with RockyRan about already paying for XBL - in cases where MS hosts the games. In cases where they don't... it's not really the publisher's fault they want to get paid, but MS' for not even permitting multiplayer without giving them a cut. They're almost literally just charging for the ability to make IP connections in that case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted September 4, 2011 Report Share Posted September 4, 2011 Well authentication servers can be around for as long as the company is. (whether they are is another matter) Multiplayer servers aren't exactly in a static state, so they can be around for just as long too. Once again doesn't mean they always are. Cerberus network provided some DLC as well as odds n sods for ME2 players. It was turned off last year. It's not really an unrelated case since it was part of EA's Project $10, along with EA Sports online pass n other "buy new" incentives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuchikoma Posted September 4, 2011 Report Share Posted September 4, 2011 Cerberus network provided some DLC as well as odds n sods for ME2 players. It was turned off last year. It's not really an unrelated case since it was part of EA's Project $10, along with EA Sports online pass n other "buy new" incentives. It may factor into your discussion, but I did not list names or companies. I was talking about the practice of charging used-game buyers for online services like multiplayer. I've already said it sucks when DLC becomes unavailable for future players or reinstalled copies, and if they're gating more integral content behind that initiative, then that's unfortunate, but I consider it a separate practice since it's by no means necessary to tie the two together. Personally though, I'm more upset that you can't get that content on a disc(?) than the fact you can't get it without a pass - and the fact that some of it is only available in cross promotions. I can see the rationale for not giving free DLC to used copies, but... mainly I don't like the fact that it's DLC, and not on a permanent disc, so it's temporary content. Also, whatever the cost of hosting may be, I'm sure the paid DLC would cover it, whoever you allow to purchase, so it would be dumb to gate that - but I see they haven't, and paid DLC can be accessed without CN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope Posted September 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2011 In response to MasterDex's point about public companies responsibilities to stockholders: it seems nobody has any clue whether or not DRM is helpful or harmful as there doesn't appear to be any meaningful data to point to and I suppose it's easier to say to your shareholders "at least we're doing something!" Also, for some reason it didn't even bother me until just now that you guys mentioned it that you're paying for XBL gold and still being charged an online pass. That seems pretty nuts to me. Am I paying for my online when I buy the game new or am I paying for it when I buy my XBL subscription? Double dipping again it seems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyRan Posted September 6, 2011 Report Share Posted September 6, 2011 In response to MasterDex's point about public companies responsibilities to stockholders: it seems nobody has any clue whether or not DRM is helpful or harmful as there doesn't appear to be any meaningful data to point to and I suppose it's easier to say to your shareholders "at least we're doing something!" Also, for some reason it didn't even bother me until just now that you guys mentioned it that you're paying for XBL gold and still being charged an online pass. That seems pretty nuts to me. Am I paying for my online when I buy the game new or am I paying for it when I buy my XBL subscription? Double dipping again it seems. Especially because the most common excuse for online passes ("Servers cost money, they need to be maintained, but used buyers are getting a free ride") makes absolutely no sense. These "freeloaders" are still paying for online maintenance, in the form of paying for an XBL subscription, which is supposed to pay for EXACTLY those servers costing money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterDex Posted September 6, 2011 Report Share Posted September 6, 2011 Surely that's dependant on the game in question though? I thought that for the most part, an XBL subscription is to support Live itself. While Microsoft hosts many games, they don't cover it all. Take EA for example, they went with dedicated servers for Bad Company 2 on consoles, Microsoft wasn't paying for those, EA were. I think bringing XBL into the discussion could confuse matters. You're required by Microsoft to pay for XBL, not the publishers or developers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope Posted September 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2011 I suppose that could be true but is Madden running dedicated servers? Am I paying for them to maintain rosters? If that's the case why can't we download fan rosters for free? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyRan Posted September 6, 2011 Report Share Posted September 6, 2011 Surely that's dependant on the game in question though? I thought that for the most part, an XBL subscription is to support Live itself. While Microsoft hosts many games, they don't cover it all. Take EA for example, they went with dedicated servers for Bad Company 2 on consoles, Microsoft wasn't paying for those, EA were. I think bringing XBL into the discussion could confuse matters. You're required by Microsoft to pay for XBL, not the publishers or developers. They don't cover it all, but then again, EA isn't the only one trying to cash in on this silly "Online Pass" crap. There's also the more obvious fact that 95% of console games have only multiplayer using peer-to-peer matchmaking, which doesn't require nearly as much as companies charging for these playpasses like to say. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope Posted September 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2011 There's also the more obvious fact that 95% of console games have only multiplayer using peer-to-peer matchmaking, which doesn't require nearly as much as companies charging for these playpasses like to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted September 7, 2011 Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 http://www.1up.com/news/driver-san-francisco-online-pass-free-printing-gaffe And another reason why it's all shit. Ubisoft will single-handedly bring the whole thing down with the amount of cock ups they carry on having with their various DRM and anti-used sales schemes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyRan Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 Heavy Rain dev whines like a LEETLE BABEE MAN (Heavy voice) about used game sales: http://www.joystiq.com/2011/09/12/heavy-rain-developer-estimates-13m-loss-on-second-hand-sales/ Of course, he doesn't let crazy things like rentals and borrowed games get in his way of his genius logic. This here is the perfect example of a developer with a ridiculous sense of entitlement, thinking he is owed money simply because somebody somewhere played his game at some point in time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excel_excel Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 Heavy Rain dev whines like a LEETLE BABEE MAN (Heavy voice) about used game sales: http://www.joystiq.c...ond-hand-sales/ Of course, he doesn't let crazy things like rentals and borrowed games get in his way of his genius logic. This here is the perfect example of a developer with a ridiculous sense of entitlement, thinking he is owed money simply because somebody somewhere played his game at some point in time. "On my small level it's a million people playing my game without giving me one cent." Just from the trophy data they got this info from. What an utter maroon. Not only your reasons but what about other members of families playing? They'd all be on different accounts. Ugh. Maybe if they'd actually made that DLC they were talking about, instead of putting in Move support, more people would have held onto the game instead of trading it in. For me, I played through the game once and that was it. I knew the story then, whether someone died or not didn't change the story in any real meaningful way. The killer was still the killer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope Posted September 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 Yeah, we'd been talking about that over in the piracy thread but this thread would have been more appropriate for it. http://forum.pressxordie.com/index.php?showtopic=425&view=findpost&p=62189 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope Posted September 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2011 I got a used copy of Homefront but there are so many copies of it flying around that CAGs are sharing the online codes they haven't redeemed so I am still able to play online. Suck it online pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted September 19, 2011 Report Share Posted September 19, 2011 (edited) Ugh. Maybe if they'd actually made that DLC they were talking about... :-O I totally said this same thing... stop pirating my thoughts! EDIT: Yeah! Here it is. Brain Pirate! http://forum.pressxordie.com/index.php?showtopic=425&view=findpost&p=62198 Edited September 19, 2011 by Thursday Next 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope Posted September 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2011 Oh yeah, I traded my copy of Heavy Rain into amazon for $16. Totally worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope Posted October 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=16282 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope Posted October 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Oh goody, now we're locking away single player portions of the game for used game buyers. http://www.destructoid.com/batman-arkham-city-online-pass-unlocks-catwoman-content-213626.phtml Seriously people, just lock the whole game away without a code, we know you're moving that way anyway. Just get it over with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 You mean like PC games have been doing since the beginning of time? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Well that won't make pirating 360 games seem more appealing at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope Posted October 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Oh I know it's coming and that's not what bothers me. Just rip the band-aid off quick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyRan Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 (edited) http://www.joystiq.c...-5-step-proces/ Absolutely appalling. Warner shows the world how publishers can have a great thing like Arkham City and still find a way to fuck that up beyond release. Basically here's the deal. Warner wants to get into the whole "NO UZED GAMES LOL" bandwagon, so they lock away single player content. So far, so bad. But apparently, nobody really told them that if they wanted to have their "NO UZED GAMES LOL" bandwagon, they actually had to work and put effort. Effort? You're crazy! Let's just half-ass the whole process and fuck up the code for a bunch of people such that a bunch of new buyers can't get their code to work right (or even at all in many cases). What does Warner proceed to do then? Now Warner wants the new purchasers to prove that they bought the game new. They want a receipt of you buying the game, your GT/PSN username, your e-mail, and a picture of your code sheet and game case. That's right, folks, the burden of proof is now on the consumer to prove that they didn't buy used, even though this is Warner's shitty ass system and Warner's own fuck-up. This. This right here is why the whole "movement" needs to die a horrible, fiery death. Anyone who continues to defend the whole practice after this pathetic display needs to realize just how much they're hurting the consumer. This is flat out hostile behavior toward the consumer and thus have reached a new low in the industry. If you would've told me 10 years ago that in the year 2011 we were going to have game content ripped out from a game we already bought, only for us to put a code back into the game so we can magically get access to it because some greedy fuck in a suit wants to eliminate used game sales, only for those codes to not work so now you have to PROVE to the publisher that you bought it new with pictures of your game box, receipt and code I would've laughed in your face and ask you how tight your fucking tinfoil hat was. Edited October 19, 2011 by RockyRan 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excel_excel Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Holy crappy publisher job, Batman!.....seriously that is just so incredibly crappy....I have no words. Why the fuck don't they just let people get the code from the store they bought it? You bought it from Amazon, fine have them send the code to you, you bought it from a store, have it sent to you. Jesus Christ. This is literally where people said we'd be when the whole online pass thing started...and here we are. what's next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madbassman39 Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Not defending Warner in no way, BUT the proper way to fix this fuck up, would be to give it away to everybody. Chalk it up as a loss and just let everybody get the new copy download, until they can confirm that they no longer have games without the codes on store shelves. It was stupid to begin with, but now, its just gotten from stupid to downright "WTF!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.