Saw the locked post & felt I had to comment.

I think this is a GREAT idea that you need this pass to play online.

To clear this up because I dont think some people understand it....

If you buy the game new, you get the token.

If you have a pirated version, well.....your screwed,

What I like about this is I hope this will force Big Chain video game stores to lower their used prices because you will need that token to play online & lets face it... $5 off used & a additional $10 to play online will kill used sales!

So, this is good for the developers & FINALLY puts the screws to big chains raping the consumer.

Im sure you all know what they give you for a trade in & then they turn around and double the profit!

I worked at a big chain retail video game store & I always thought that was BS! Hopefully, this will end some of it!

So now the developers will benefit instead of the retail stores because this will force them to lower their used prices and as far as pirates go.................... they are FINISHED!

This is ridiculous crap,I'm not worrying about myself,cuz I'm gonna get that K edition,but many of my friends not much of impressed with MK and shouldn't buy new or pay for pass,so I couldn't play against or with them...
Anyway,you can find me online day ONE!

This is ridiculous crap
Why is it ridiculous for WB to profit from sales of their software. Don't forget, when you buy a game, you don't actually own the game. You're only licensed to play it. You may own the case and the disc, but you don't own the software on the disc.

Publishers lose alot of money on used game sales. This is WB attempting to recover some of those losses.

Good for them I say....Think of it this way if this game is a good seller(Which it will be)and WB loses as little as possible......The faster we get a sequel lol.

This is ridiculous crap
Why is it ridiculous for WB to profit from sales of their software. Don't forget, when you buy a game, you don't actually own the game. You're only licensed to play it. You may own the case and the disc, but you don't own the software on the disc.

Publishers lose alot of money on used game sales. This is WB attempting to recover some of those losses.

YOU SAID IT FUZZ!

I saw it first Hand when I worked at Electronics Boutique.....give the customer nothing for a trade in and make a ton of profit reselling it!

Rather see the developer getting the money and NOT the retail store.

If its such big deal for your friends, have them rent it...they get a 2 day pass for free & can pay online.

PS...But its ok for MS to charge $50+ dollars to play online? My gripe is there!

PS3 is free...all of you could get a PS3 and pay 10 bucks to play & you would be ahead of the game!

You're forgetting those who cannot afford a new game and a lot of gamers buy used games. Its not about the ones that get the games pirated, screw them, its about those that do not have the luxury of buying a brand new game. I still buy used games because I don't have 64 dollars to shell out for a game, no matter how bad I want it. In the end, its about money. They're trying to shut down the used games market, so they're making us pay. You can't single out those that aren't blessed with the gift of buying new games.

You're forgetting those who cannot afford a new game and a lot of gamers buy used games. Its not about the ones that get the games pirated, screw them, its about those that do not have the luxury of buying a brand new game. I still buy used games because I don't have 64 dollars to shell out for a game, no matter how bad I want it. In the end, its about money. They're trying to shut down the used games market, so they're making us pay. You can't single out those that aren't blessed with the gift of buying new games.

I don't see how NRS or any company who practices this online pass tactic are screwing over people who buy used, it's not like they say oh you bought used so now you have absolutely no way to play online. It costs money to maintain and run the servers people use to play video games online and when a person buys used the company does not get a single cent of that money, so I personally see this online pass as a way for the companies to not only make a small amount of money back on their work, but also a sort of donation to maintain the servers that you are using.

Unless the new MK is a big commercial flop which honestly I highly doubt you are going to be waiting months and months for a significant drop in used price(I'm going off of EB's used prices.) If you were lucky enough to find a used copy early in the game's shelf life you would pay 54.99 for a used copy and if you waited a month or two, depending on the success of the title it may drop down to 49.99, I'm a poor college student who has to plan my spending ahead of time to ensure I will have enough money to do everything I need so I understand not having the luxury of monetary comfort, however your comment on not having "the luxury to be new" seems to be a comment brought forth by laziness rather than personal wealth. I believe I pre-ordered MK 6 months ago and had been slowly saving up until a month ago when I finally paid off my pre-order. I don't understand how when you've known this game would be coming out for months (like any other game that is announced months before release,) that you could not think ahead to save up small amounts of money over a fixed period of time so paying the 64 dollars would not be such a blow to your pocket book rather than simply saving 5 to 10 dollars on a used purchase and claiming it's the companies fault for not keeping the poor consumer in mind when an additional charge like this is brought up. I'm really glad MK decided to encompass their online with this pass, and I hope more game companies adopt this in the future, gamers and consumers in general in the modern day have grown such a wicked sense of entitlement and I rather enjoy watching these individuals getting upset over their own ignorance.

Plus this will force places to reduce their used prices!

You're forgetting those who cannot afford a new game and a lot of gamers buy used games. Its not about the ones that get the games pirated, screw them, its about those that do not have the luxury of buying a brand new game. I still buy used games because I don't have 64 dollars to shell out for a game, no matter how bad I want it. In the end, its about money. They're trying to shut down the used games market, so they're making us pay. You can't single out those that aren't blessed with the gift of buying new games.

I don't see how NRS or any company who practices this online pass tactic are screwing over people who buy used, it's not like they say oh you bought used so now you have absolutely no way to play online. It costs money to maintain and run the servers people use to play video games online and when a person buys used the company does not get a single cent of that money, so I personally see this online pass as a way for the companies to not only make a small amount of money back on their work, but also a sort of donation to maintain the servers that you are using.

Unless the new MK is a big commercial flop which honestly I highly doubt you are going to be waiting months and months for a significant drop in used price(I'm going off of EB's used prices.) If you were lucky enough to find a used copy early in the game's shelf life you would pay 54.99 for a used copy and if you waited a month or two, depending on the success of the title it may drop down to 49.99, I'm a poor college student who has to plan my spending ahead of time to ensure I will have enough money to do everything I need so I understand not having the luxury of monetary comfort, however your comment on not having "the luxury to be new" seems to be a comment brought forth by laziness rather than personal wealth. I believe I pre-ordered MK 6 months ago and had been slowly saving up until a month ago when I finally paid off my pre-order. I don't understand how when you've known this game would be coming out for months (like any other game that is announced months before release,) that you could not think ahead to save up small amounts of money over a fixed period of time so paying the 64 dollars would not be such a blow to your pocket book rather than simply saving 5 to 10 dollars on a used purchase and claiming it's the companies fault for not keeping the poor consumer in mind when an additional charge like this is brought up. I'm really glad MK decided to encompass their online with this pass, and I hope more game companies adopt this in the future, gamers and consumers in general in the modern day have grown such a wicked sense of entitlement and I rather enjoy watching these individuals getting upset over their own ignorance.


I never said that they were screwing over anyone. I said that it just made it harder for people who can't afford brand new games. Why don't you listen?

no matter how bad I want it. In the end, its about money. They're trying to shut down the used games market, so they're making us pay. You can't single out those that aren't blessed with the gift of buying new games.


I never said that they were screwing over anyone. I said that it just made it harder for people who can't afford brand new games. Why don't you listen?

While my choice of words placed what you said in a much cruder context I believe I did not miss your message. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't what you are basically saying in your post that in WB/NRS' attempt to combat the used sales market they are making victims out of the poor individuals who rely on "bargain hunting" for games?

I'll agree that perhaps using the phrase screwed over wasn't the best of choices, because obviously it painted a much more vehement picture than you were trying to convey, however, and again anyone please correct me if I'm wrong here, completely disregarding my own choice of words here the message that still comes across to the reader from your post is that you feel put in an uncomfortable position due to the online pass proposal. If so I believe my previous argument still stands and if not I guess I will just shut the fuck up

I disagree with this approach by Warner Bros. Honestly, what is the problem with people bargain hunting? They're not criminals and they're not purposely hurting the video-game industry, nor do they exclusively 'target' video-games. People have been buying used goods for thousands of years, it is nothing new, it is nothing sinister.

I mean come on, you'd be a little pissed if you bought a used car but could only drive it home before it got locked down on weekends by the manufacturer demanding a commission from you for the sell-on by the previous owner. Or what about buying a used Sony TV that couldn't play games/DVDs/etc until you coughed up another 100 or so for a pass-code to unlock the telly. Yeah, yeah, ridiculous examples I know, but I hope they convey my point.

I get where Fuzz is coming from, you own the disk but not the software, but really that's there to protect the intellectual property from pirating and rip-offs. Ignoring the legal definition when I buy something, used or new, I consider in spirit that I have ownership over it and I can do whatever I like with that item so long as I don't bring any form of harm to anyone else. If I want to lend the game to a friend, I will. If I want to break the disc in half, I will. If I want to sell it on when I'm bored with it, I will. I see nothing wrong with that, and I see nothing wrong with someone purchasing it from me.

Yes, the used-games business is huge and still growing. Yes, each sale benefits the retailer completely with not a single penny going back to the publisher and developer, but is that the consumer's fault? No. People will always bargain hunt, more now than ever what with the current financial climate.

It is arrogant to belittle anyone looking for a good deal. Put it this way, you can buy 1 brand new game for ?50 or 2 used games for ?25 each. The latter is called being a savvy shopper, making the most of what you have got. Looking at it from another prospective, buying a new game for ?50, or buying it used for ?25 then using the other ?25 to go out with mates, something you wouldn't be able to afford if you fronted the full price for the game. Yes I know there is a 'cool-down' time for new releases to drop in price both for new and used games, but that is beside the point. If you want to play the game on release day it is entirely fair to expect you to pay the RRP of the game.

People have to bear in mind that the majority of gamers are adults, (with the majority of kid-gamers getting their income and games from their parents) and as such most have the rather unpleasant reality of a fixed income and ever spiralling outgoings which directly impacts any disposable income. Truth be told, most people could save up a little here and a little there to save up for big new releases, but more times than not that money could be better spent elsewhere. WB are adding an additional cost that directly affects the consumer, not the profit making retailers. With every new cost disposable income goes down. Yes WB might recoup some money from used-games sells, but if every other publisher and developer starts slapping on these charges used-game sales will go down, and so will regular game sales.

Also worth considering is that the video-game industry has grown immensely over the past two decades. It is now a multi-billion $ industry. So, of course, the used-game market has grown too as a consequence. There are more gamers now and people are also willing to spend more on gaming now that it is a social norm. That does not mean that every used-game sale is direct money lost to a video-game company. After all a consumer may buy a used game only because it was cheap and would never ever have considered the game if it was only sold at full price. That is technically not a loss for the game developer, in fact, it is a sort of gain since their work spreads more as a consequence.

I own a XBOX 360 and purchase a yearly subscription to Gold Membership. Many people believe this is a rip off, but I far prefer this than to have to pay for each individual game I wish to play online. That is a scenario I would like to avoid.

Some good points were raised though, servers have maintenance costs and it is only the online component that will be under lock and key. Sure you can play the game proper, unlock the costumes, beat the crap out of your friends in local play but really if you're buying something you want to use all of its features or else you feel cheated. As for server costs, and other potential losses as a consequence of used-game sells? Well fair due, these are costs and losses that need to be seen to, I just believe there could be other ways to it than directly targeting the consumer. I honestly feel the games companies should seek to recoup losses from the retailers that are the ones profiting. Although I have no suggestion for how just yet. Another possibility is to use indirect means of recouping off the consumer that does not directly impact them financially. How about in-game adverts? Every time you wish to play online you have to view an advert first, adverts you could permanently remove with a one-off cost, IF you so choose to pay it.

It seems the video-game industry is rather bitter about the whole used-game business when really they should be thankful that it isn't a whole lot worse. I mean think about it, why don't we have the same problem with movies and music? Because they're so easy to pirate and that DOES directly affect the income of those industries. The console and video-game combo is rather a difficult thing to pirate and profit from in comparison. Things really could be worse for these companies and targeting the consumer will only alienate them until a worst-case scenario becomes a reality. Recoup losses from the retailers profiting from your work, not the consumers purchasing and enjoying it legally.

So this is what it comes down to for me, when you purchase something you should have full functionality from it, you bought it after all. Want it in brand new condition? On release day? Then buy it new at full price.

nice post crispydragon looks like you really put some thought into this and you bring up some really good points.I'm only going to briefly comment on some of what you've said, I get for the most part what you are trying to convey from your examples, however the only problem I see here is both the automotive and television industry have one real big thing to combat the used sale industry that for the most part the video game software industry does not and that would be that they can constantly come up with new technologies that make previous version obsolete and really push the consumer to consider buying the latest and greatest rather than used. With the exception of sports video games that come out yearly, video game software does not have this luxury and this is why I think the whole online pass strategy has come to be, it is the video game industries way of persuading you to buy "the new model" rather than "last years." If you buy a used television it can be expected there might be some scratches and scuffs, a used car may smell of cigarettes from the previous owner or have a dinged bumper or not have a CD player, basically what I'm trying to get at here is when you buy used for any other thing you come to expect and accept these little imperfections, why should the video game industry be held to a different standard then anyone else?

online capability is not something the game industry is required to give its consumers, sure it's what we come to expect when it says on the back of the box network play 2-16 players or whatever the number may be, but in many of the EULA's found in video games that you are asked to agree to it is stated that the company reserves the right to discontinue the game servers at anytime and shut down the online component. An immediate example that comes to mind is Demon's souls, a few months ago the server shutdown date was approaching and due to the sales and popularity of the game the company decided to extend the period the servers would remain open as a thank you to the fans.

no it's not the consumer's fault that used sales hurt the video game industry but as consumers we must also understand that it is also not the video game industry's fault to try and earn the most money possible from their work.

I understand where you are coming from Aikou and there's just a few points I'd like to address.

nice post crispydragon looks like you really put some thought into this and you bring up some really good points.I'm only going to briefly comment on some of what you've said, I get for the most part what you are trying to convey from your examples, however the only problem I see here is both the automotive and television industry have one real big thing to combat the used sale industry that for the most part the video game software industry does not and that would be that they can constantly come up with new technologies that make previous version obsolete and really push the consumer to consider buying the latest and greatest rather than used. With the exception of sports video games that come out yearly, video game software does not have this luxury and this is why I think the whole online pass strategy has come to be, it is the video game industries way of persuading you to buy "the new model" rather than "last years." If you buy a used television it can be expected there might be some scratches and scuffs, a used car may smell of cigarettes from the previous owner or have a dinged bumper or not have a CD player, basically what I'm trying to get at here is when you buy used for any other thing you come to expect and accept these little imperfections, why should the video game industry be held to a different standard then anyone else?

Yes there are flaws in my comparisons, but I did not believe they were ironclad. They were ridiculous examples to convey a point. Also I understand that the used video-game market is also on a much larger scale than anything else being re-sold currently, but I believe that is beside the point. I believe, if it is possible, that you should be able to have full functionality of anything you purchase, second hand or brand new. I agree with you in your examples of used cars and TV's, or pretty much anything pre-owned. You do come to expect a level of wear and tear from previous use. However, that is down to the previous owner, not the original manufacturer imposing limitations. So long as these faults are explained to you and you agree to them before purchase, then fine fair enough if the item is buffed, chipped or whatever. It is also the same with games, buying a used game you expect to see a few scratches, maybe a worn-out manual. This is understandable and fair because that is down to direct previous use. Imposing a limitation on something that would otherwise work perfectly just to score a few extra $ is, in my opinion, unfair.

online capability is not something the game industry is required to give its consumers, sure it's what we come to expect when it says on the back of the box network play 2-16 players or whatever the number may be, but in many of the EULA's found in video games that you are asked to agree to it is stated that the company reserves the right to discontinue the game servers at anytime and shut down the online component. An immediate example that comes to mind is Demon's souls, a few months ago the server shutdown date was approaching and due to the sales and popularity of the game the company decided to extend the period the servers would remain open as a thank you to the fans.

I agree, online capability is not a requirement for a game. You could have no online functionality whatsoever and sell it as a single player game, or as you said you can take servers down when it becomes unprofitable to host them. I've come to expect this, myself having many old games where the servers no longer host cutting me out of that part of the game. Yet that is fair enough, it was as you said laid out in their terms and conditions. If I wanted to play those games online I should have done so when they were still hosting for everyone, without bias. However, shutting someone out while the servers are still running just because they have a used-game is a completely different scenario and one I do not agree with.

no it's not the consumer's fault that used sales hurt the video game industry but as consumers we must also understand that it is also not the video game industry's fault to try and earn the most money possible from their work.

Exactly, I agree wholeheartedly. It is neither the consumer's fault looking for a bargain, or the video game industry hoping to profit from their intellectual property, so why is it that it is the consumers that have to foot the bill? Honestly, it should be the used-game retailers that get targeted, but I understand that currently it is near on impossible and any limitations would lead to an over complication of re-selling legislation. I just believe there should be more thought put into getting money out of the retailers. Perhaps a commission fee or something of the like? I also believe there are different approaches to encourage consumers to buy new over used as you have mentioned. Pre-order bonuses is one example, as well as exclusive DLC pre-bundled with a new purchase as well. DLC, that can be bought separately, if at a slightly inflated price. They're both examples of encouraging new game purchases that do not punish a consumer, but rather reward them.

My biggest fear is that while it may only be THQ, EA and WB following this practice now there is nothing to say more and more companies will not take the same approach. I do not fancy having to pay an additional charge on top of the purchase of XBOX Live and the game itself just to unlock the full functionality of the game. All these charges are simply not fair on the consumer.

Oh and just to put it out there and confuse matters, I don't ever buy used games, I can't do it, I need to have something brand spanking new still in its cellophane wrapping. Therefore this additional charge won't be a personal problem for myself, but nonetheless that is a personal choice, I attempt to see matters from everyone's perspective and will speak out against anything I do not agree with.

My point being is that I do not fault the video game's industry for attempting to recoup some more money, there is absolutely not a single thing wrong with their intentions. I do, however, believe their methods are at fault and they should attempt different approaches that do not penalise the very people that purchase, play and love their work.

What it all boils down to with online play is that a game company is providing a service which unfortunately is getting very expensive - servers, maintenance, etc. - due to its popularity. Why should a game company provide a service for someone who didn't directly pay for it? If a person buys a pre-owned game and plays online, the game company essentially will have gotten 0% return for providing the service to that person.

As the cost and popularity of online play grows, don't be surprised if a majority of games include this pay-to-play feature for online services.

once again a wonderful post CrispyDragon, you've definitely brought up some great counter-points


I also believe there are different approaches to encourage consumers to buy new over used as you have mentioned. Pre-order bonuses is one example, as well as exclusive DLC pre-bundled with a new purchase as well. DLC, that can be bought separately, if at a slightly inflated price. They're both examples of encouraging new game purchases that do not punish a consumer, but rather reward them.


This is actually a really great idea, two immediate games that come to mind that did this are Crysis 2 and Battlefield Bad Company 2. Crysis 2 rewards consumers for buying new with bonus xp, a unique skin, a really neat weapon attachment that allows you to project a hologram of yourself, and a unique dog-tag available only to those who bought the limited edition when it first came out. Battlefield rewards its consumers who buy new by giving them several VIP maps, players who buy used still have access to the online, but must pay an additional fee to gain access to the VIP content. My only concern here would be that it seems like it would more difficult to implement some sort of reward system in a fighting game. Giving bonus stages to those who buy new would definitely be nice, but at the same time what would happen in online lobbies? Would players who have this extra content be split into a completely different pool from those who do not or would they simply not be able to chose that stage when fighting an opponent who does not have the content? I suppose an extra day 1 dlc character unlock or exclusive character skins would be a much more logical choice as far as rewards for players buying new. I've yet to see any other fighting games try this method so I'm curious as to how it would play out.


Oh and just to put it out there and confuse matters, I don't ever buy used games, I can't do it, I need to have something brand spanking new still in its cellophane wrapping. Therefore this additional charge won't be a personal problem for myself, but nonetheless that is a personal choice, I attempt to see matters from everyone's perspective and will speak out against anything I do not agree with.


haha I'm the complete opposite, I constantly buy used games, and constantly trade in games, which is how I've been able to play such a wide array of titles that normally would have been impossible for me to play. Despite this fact I still felt compelled to defend the video game companies actions

This sounds pretty fair to me I guess. I'm like 50/50 on this argument, companies deserve to profit, but sometimes they are so fucking greedy. Since you only have to pay $9.99 once, that's not too bad. By the same token, it makes me what else WB will be doing to make a profit. What's next, charging people to play offline?

What's next, charging people to play offline?

haha Capcom has already started doing that one

What's next, charging people to play offline?

haha Capcom has already started doing that one

They've really started doing that? That's bullshit if they bought the game and are playing it offline

What's next, charging people to play offline?

haha Capcom has already started doing that one

They've really started doing that? That's bullshit if they bought the game and are playing it offline

lol yeah in Marvel vs. Capcom 3, a while back they released this free extra mode called shadow mode, that lets you play against pre determined teams. This week the released the first shadow pack which costs a dollar and allows you to fight thee teams:

Team 1: S.T.A.R.S.
Jill
Chris
Wesker

Team 2: Street Fighters
Ryu
Chun-li
Akuma

Team 3: Vampire Girls
Morrigan
Felicia
Hsien-Ko

essentially you could set these teams up yourself to play against in training mode for free (I say training mode because MVC3 offers no regular versus cpu... such a barebones game )

I know it's just a dollar and that's practically nothing... but still god damn