Mortal Kombat's Boon defends online pass
"It's necessary for games, period."
Online pass isn't just right for upcoming fighting game Mortal Kombat, it's right for all games.
That's the stark assessment of NetherRealm boss Ed Boon, who insisted to Eurogamer that its inclusion in Mortal Kombat - a first for a fighting game - will not restrict the game's online community.
"It's necessary for games, period," he said.
"When we sell a game, we need to recuperate the cost of development. These games cost many many millions of dollars to produce. If somebody is re-selling our game and cutting us out of the sharing of the profits of the game, to pay for our games we need to do something to protect our investment."
All versions of Mortal Kombat come with two days of online play free.
After two days, to continue playing online you need to redeem your code - included in new copies of the game - or buy an online pass.
"For the guy who bought the game for the first time you get online free," Boon explained. "You get the entire game. For somebody who went out and bought it for $20 or something, for considerably less, we feel like they haven't paid full price for the game.
"There are untold million of dollars of product development and research that's gone into the game and the infrastructure of the online system."
The online pass has emerged in recent years as publishers' primary weapon in the battle against second hand sales.
EA has been its biggest enthusiast, although many publishers are now following suit, including THQ and Sony.
Fighting game fans, however, are not used to online pass - and some have expressed concern that Mortal Kombat's online community could be restricted as a result of its inclusion.
Not so, according to Boon.
"The people who only rent games or people who only buy used games probably go through a lot more games in a shorter period of time. We feel like in order for us to continue to make games, we need to get enough back to pay for it. That's the motivation there."
-
About Mortal Kombat
-
146 followers
-
Buy online
£11.95
About Wesley Yin-Poole
Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.
Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.
You may also like...
-
Going Hardcore in Diablo 3
Just how much fun is permadeath, exactly? 76
-
Judge recommends US Xbox 360 ban
Motorola vs Microsoft patent dispute heats up. President Obama may have to step in. 157
-
Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Review
Techno prisoners. 125
You may also like...
-
Going Hardcore in Diablo 3 76
-
Judge recommends US Xbox 360 ban 157
-
Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Review 125
-
Japan chart: My Little Sister Can't Possibly Be This Cute takes top spot 75
-
Diablo 3 Review 242
-
Sony developing Shadow of the Colossus movie 45
-
Wii U Darksiders 2 graphics "at least as good" as PS3, Xbox 360 versions' 59
-
Dragon's Dogma Review 127
-
Face-Off: Max Payne 3 146
-
Inside Xbox team set up on their own 33
-
Diablo 3 fastest-selling PC game ever, biggest PC game launch in history 72
-
App of the Day: This Could Hurt 3
-
Street Fighter 25th Anniversary Collector's Set announced 45
-
Capcom plans to speed up development times on top franchises 37
-
Diablo 3: Blizzard nerfs monk in first hotfix 49
Comments (102) Latest comment 1 year ago
Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
but if you look at RAW VS Smackdown 11, online was as unstable as ever, yet you needed that online pass thats just bull...
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I've been a bit of a supporter of the online pass. Game development costs have gone up and technically we pay the same for a game than back in the 16 bit era, even less probably. But it needs to find a midle ground and there needs to be a way to allow second hand purchasers to have a trial of the online segment of the game without paying for the complete unlock. - Consider Little big planet2 as an example, the online multiplayer is so laggy that I don't wish anyone to ever spend money unlocking an unplayable online mode for that title.
Edit: Tonne was also correct with his SVR2011 comparrision. Lazy maintenence is not what second hand buyers should be expected to pay for!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
If you buy the game second hand, add £6 to your total spend.
You've likely still saved money.
I can totally respect what Ed Boon is saying. And if that income results in continued support of the product I see no issue.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Yeah, its true. If you are going to start charging for multiplayer, you had better make sure its up to scratch.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
the first guy sold his right to free online to the guy who bought it for $20.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Its the way that *everythings* going to be when things go download only anyhow, hope you all enjoyed having any control over your stuff at all while it lasted.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
money should go to devs, not retail stores. spin it any way you like, but if studios make less money, you, the gamer, get less games. if retailers make more money, they sure as hell won't start producing any games with it.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The online pass argument as far as i am concerned CANNOT hold water on a 360 title as long as M$ are charging for live.
Further - and this has already been said if your going to charge for online then it has to work. People wouldnt think twice about ringing their ISP if their paid for, online connectivity wasnt working. You would be on the phone to your phone provider at the drop of a hat if your phone dropped you out of telephone conversations, or wouldnt connect when you called someone because the cells are too busy.
I call shennanigans.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Just a guess.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
By the way Mr Boon, no online pass needed over on Steam. Eh? Come on those Super Street Fighters are finally coming over for a ruck (maybe even the Tekken crew to!) how about your mob? *wink* *wink*
Comment below viewing threshold Show
However; I DID neg you because I hate people who say "lol" when they obviously aren't laughing at all.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Not a massive cost for online play if you were to buy MK on the cheap then! Besides, Boon hasn't factored in the people who don't care about online play. I certainly don't, so a second-hand purchase would be ideal for a casual player like myself.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
lol
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
What I do mind is how devs are trying to make second hand games to be some unspeakable evil. I totally understand that they're upset that they're not earning anything on a second hand sale (they should), but then again they do not provide any service (returns if damaged, etc) to that customer - or "PriceProtection" to the store carrying them.
But the even bigger issue they're overlooking is that trade-ins often go to purchasing a new game (especially the 10 days before payday)! They're also - for the lack of a better term - a gateway drug for people just getting into gaming. (Get one new game, or three used ones? Those three games have a higher chance to introduce the customer to a franchise he/she otherwise would never have cared about)
Comment below viewing threshold Show
""For the guy who bought the game for the first time you get online free," Boon explained. "You get the entire game. For somebody who went out and bought it for $20 or something, for considerably less, we feel like they haven't paid full price for the game."
---------------------
You may think the second guy did not pay the full price for the game, but that is no longer your business. Yo are not a party in this trade. You already got paid for that particular copy of the game in full by the first buyer.
Doesn't anyone else think this totally screwed? It's like me buying a car from a car shop for a full price, and then when i later resell the car i own to someone else the car shop that originally sold me the car wants a cut on the deal because 'cars are expensive to make' ?!? What kind of crewed logic is that?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
1. "A" buys the game new.
2. Dev/Pub gets the money to run the online infrastructure.
3. "A" plays online, servers have to deal with one new player.
4. "A" sells the game.
5. "B" buys the game second hand.
6. "B" plays online, servers still dealing with the same number of players.
Now if step 2 is not enough and the Dev/Pub can't afford to run the infrastructure on one sale of the game per online user then something is deeply flawed with the way they do business.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The problem with your car analogy is that here the retailers are pushing you to buy used, and lots of times you can only choose a used copy, even if it's a quite recently released title. The car dealers just don't do that, also the transaction is of much higher value so they are not directly comparable.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
However, I still hear absolutely no admissions or apologies over Armageddon, a game which still irks me by how catastrophically shit it was - and not in a good way. Until I hear a sincere, heartfelt apology for making the fans of your series endure that god-awful piece of utter turd in a basket, there will be no sale.
We learned the hard way the last time. Some of us do not forget... and will never forget...
Comment below viewing threshold Show
While he does mention the online infrasctructure costs, I think his main point is that second hand buyers or people that rent aren't paying the amount he thinks they should for the game. He also mentions that second hand sales do not contribute to their profits and makes it harder to justify making another game.
Personally, I wait until games drop to £20 - £25 in the shops. I'll rarely buy games on day one.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
And don't forget "project 10 dollar" which the online pass system originated from which is not against second hand so says EA man
project-ten-dollar-improves-experience
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I find it incredible that: 1) The gaming industry is the only industry out there that believes it's entitled to money long after a purchase has been made, and 2) there are plenty of sheep out there who are more than willing to surrender their consumer rights just to be part of the day-one herd.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
What about those who don't have access to the marketplaces of their respective consoles? Even if those buy new, they can't download the file that authorises online play.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Corporate hipocrisy right there.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
EA have tried using the infrastructure maintenance argument to defend online pass but as you have proven, it doesn't hold water. At least Ed Boon is being straight and just saying "Look. We made the game and we want every penny we can get from the sales."
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"The problem with your car analogy is that here the retailers are pushing you to buy used, and lots of times only you can only choose a used copy, even if it's a quite recently released title. The car dealers just don't do that, also the transaction is of much higher value so they are not directly comparable. "
-------------
So what? If the game is used, then it has been sold for the full price once already, and the original publisher already got paid in full for that copy. I fail to see how your point entitles the original publisher to getting cuts from every subsequent trade of the original game, as they demand in the article.
Also, i fail to see how the value of the commodity has anything to do with it. If they sell me a ware, regardless of what the value of it is, they no longer own it, i do. If i decide to sell it(and for how much), its my business, not theirs.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Bloody underclass going without during a worldwide recession and having to consider their purchases. I, myself would eagerly pay twice the price for this multipass as it sounds a dandy idea....oh by the way have you seen my Porsche?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Let's take an example. You buy, say, Call of Duty: Black Ops for £39.99. You get bored with it after two weeks, so you go back to trade in - they give you £14 for it. Then the retailers sell that on for £32. Between their original cut and the second hand mark-up, the retailers have been milking the second hand market for years - and making obscene money in the process.
The sad thing is, the online pass system is shit - but it's shit that we've walked into blindly by encouraging retailers to practice this - and for what? To save a few quid? Congratulations consumers of the world, this is the world we have formed for ourselves.
Developers want at least some portion of these profits - I don't blame them for a second, from GAME to Argos, the retailers have been at this for years. It's not the old days of small swapsies in video rental stores, after all, when it was low-key and rather innocent. Second hand games have become big business - and devs just want a little piece of it. And why on earth not? I'm not thrilled with the idea of a store making twice the price on games - once from original sale, then again second hand sale, often at more than double what they paid for it...
That's my viewpoint on it. We're here now - and like it or not, we have all brought it to this head.
Regardless - no apology on Armageddon = no sale. It's four and a bit years since I reader reviewed it, and time has been even less kind to my opinion of it than I was back then... I swear I think I went a bit too easy on it.
It affected me that profoundly. Even these years on... I cannot forget... and god knows how I've tried... how I've tried... *sobs*
Comment below viewing threshold Show
If you have a problem with developers using online passes you're an moron.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
One has to wonder what you're doing sat on your arse on the internet at 11am too? Do your bosses pay you to be a lazy cunt?
Believe it or not, some of us are capable of looking for work and browsing Eurogamer at the same time.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
--------------------
"Let's take an example. You buy, say, Call of Duty: Black Ops for £39.99. You get bored with it after two weeks, so you go back to trade in - they give you £14 for it. Then the retailers sell that on for £32. Between their original cut and the second hand mark-up, the retailers have been milking the second hand market for years - and making obscene money in the process. "
--------------------
I understand what you are saying, but i still believe if a company cannot make a proft from the primary sales of their product then something is wrong with their business plan.
Either they are setting the price too high(so that people look for used copes instead of buying directly from them) or they are putting out crap games(so that people get rid of their primary copies too fast).
The problem is that usually both is true. The publishers are generating tons of uninspired cut&paste sequels and are asking extraorbitant prices for it, then act surprised when people don't buy their crap. Then they start looking with envy on the second hand dealers who thrive in just that kind of environment, and cry foul.
The solution is not online passes, but putting out games that are good enough so that people wanna keep them(Gray matter anyone? Brilliant.) and/or set the prices low enough so that the brand loyalty outweights the minimal saving of an used copy(people want to support devs of games they love)
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Oh, and Black_Shooty is an extremely unpleasant individual.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
In one way you are right, capitalism at it's finest, but you do realise that the game stores in this case, want the cake and eat it as well. That is just not a sustainable business model, especially when they are 100% dependent on those new games, cause once it dries up there will be no more game stores. In one way it feels like they are cutting of the arm that actually feeds them.
Also, since it only seem to be a good deal for retailers and not the game developers, something has to give, and it's not going to be the game developers. All retail have done is accelerated their own demise as games will go online faster. And the losers, us costumers, as their will be no more trade ins.
You tell me, is that a smart business model?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I believe i answered that one in #49.
If publishers cannot make enough money from their primary game sales, it is not the fault of the game store but of the game.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"If somebody is re-selling our game and cutting us out of the sharing of the profits of the game", then we ought to, as an industry state that that is not on, that the gaming gods are displeased and will visit stock consequences upon retailers who continue to exploit the system at the cost and detriment of creators. If a player exploits a flaw in a game, and that causes the game to be less fun, then it's identified and patched...It's not the case that the player is addressed.
Nothing, pro-actively, has been done by these companies to say, that's not right. No attempt to alter the situation has been visibly made.
It's funny, that the release now, patch later school of game publishing only seems to be in session to the extent of the front door of its implementer's offices.
If they would say, that they tried to establish a mutually agreeable system, they met and discussed - plans are in place, or just they couldn't get it done then that's one thing. This, I'm not sure I agree with.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"he's right. it's a completely valid measure to get at least some sort of money out of 2nd hand sales, and i fully support this.
money should go to devs, not retail stores. spin it any way you like, but if studios make less money, you, the gamer, get less games. if retailers make more money, they sure as hell won't start producing any games with it. "
WAKE UP for goodness sake!
I love games as much as anybody but why on gods green earth do developers/publishers feel they have the right to make money from second hand sales when no other industry does the same thing? Even in the wider software industry, if I buy a copy of a product with a serial key and I then sell that product with the key later on because I have no need for it. You don't get the original software dev banging on about their cut.
I agree with orren. Something has gone wrong with the game dev/publishers business model if they are not making the money they need on initial unit sales.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I like the convenience of the high street big-name specialist stores, but I'll be blunt, I do appreciate this hobby more. I appreciate the creativity, the time put in, to entertain. I appreciate the communication, the interest, the enthusiasm and pride put in. I wonder, if the publishers rebuked, whether the GAME's et al would be as quick to continue practices in such opposition to gaming's progression and prosperity. Or, do they NEED to do this - is the margin from wholesale too minimal as some corners suggest. The games cost a lot to make and release...
The publishers wish to charge more for games, the creators to see proper reward, the retailers (supposedly) to profit from resell to outweigh low profit from initial...and, that returns to the publisher as cause, no?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I have a feeling we just have agree to disagree, I agree that the developer/publisher model has to change to a certain point. But, it's quite ignorant of retail and some people here to ask the developer to recoup their costs within a couple of weeks of release. Even the movie industry have between 3 - 6 months in the theatres before it's being released to retail.
If retail said ok, we are not going to sell used copies the first month or so, even "only" good games would have a chance to recoup their cost. And to believe that only big games like Cod should be sold, don't know anything about how creativity works. Very few developers say, hey, lets make a mediocre game and hope that it will work out. Most developers want to create a 10/10 game, but it's really difficult to actually achieve.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
1. Has new & 2nd hand product sold in the same store, where 2nd hand is actively pushed in favour of new.
2. Is on a format where 2nd hand is seen as reliable and safe as new.
3. Where a large number of products (Non-multiplayer) are used once and then not really needed again. Be this 10 or 60 hours. This means a lot of 2nd hand product coming back into the market weeks if not days after release, meaning the first week or so of releases pre 2nd hand is HUGELY important.
The Car Market - Fails on 2 (Buying a 2nd hand car is very risky), Fails on 3 (Car models can be bought over the course of a year, not the week they come out).
The CD Market - Fails on 1 (2nd hand music is not sold in the same shop as new), Fails on 3 (People listen to music over and over again).
The Book Market - Fails on 1 (2nd hand books are not sold in the same shop as new), partly fails on 2. (Many people like the feel of new books compared to old)
The DVD Film Market - Fails on 1 (2nd hand films are not sold in the same shop as new), partly fails on 3 (Many people watch a film and keep it to watch again later, rarely trade it in).
Yes, Publishers and Developers are trying to get more money from millions of people who are playing their game, yes, this is unlike any other industry, but this industry has unique problems.
For example, on my last game we are selling approximately 10,000 copies a week, but we are getting 40,000 new unique users a week, so i know we are losing 3/4 of sales for the last 3-4 months. Which is great. All that cash is going to the retailers. At least we are still making money on DLC, which obviously all the customers hate too.
TBH, i'd expect that you'll start seeing less 'game of the year' editions as that basically allows people to get all the DLC 2nd hand too.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Now that is no longer the case, or atleast not the complete experience. And neither to do we suddenly have more money to spend on games, so this whole restrict people from playing all to curb the second hand games market is pretty fucking shit.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Helps keeping the pirate scum off the multiplayer.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Here are some options:
Admit that they don't want to sell the software, just a non transferable licence to use it.
Cut the price and call it a rental instead.
How about campaigning for videogames as art Droit de suite
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"For example, on my last game we are selling approximately 10,000 copies a week, but we are getting 40,000 new unique users a week, so i know we are losing 3/4 of sales"
------------------
That would only apply if the 30000 people who bought the used copy would also have bought the game for the full price if 'used' was unavailable, which is a rather optimistic assumption.
Instead of looking at how many sales you didn't get you should ask yourself where all those used copies are coming from. Why there are so many people gettin grid of their primary purchases. Maybe your game is too short and with no replay value. Or it is boring. Not trying to insult you there, just pointing out there gotta be a reason why people are not keeping their copies longer. I mean, in the example you give above, each copy of you sold has changed hand three times(!) Talk about a hot potato.
Also, there gotta be a reason why people prefer used to original. People generally want to support developers of the games they love. If they aren't buying original despite of your game being very popular, then maybe your your price is set too high(people's loyalty is generally easier to get when it doesn't cost them an arm and leg)
I can understand why you are frustrated by second-hand profiting from your work, but do not try to remedy that by limiting your customers' rights. Customers do not appreciate being taken hostage in the developer-retail war.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
However, publishers have to do something...
the reasn so many people are buying my game 2nd hand is that it is a single player experience and at some point you finish the story. Yes, we could primarily make a multiplayer game and then wouldn't have that problem, but then fans would complain that there are not enough games with tight narrative out there.
EDIT: In fact, how would you change Mass Effect 2 so that it doesn't get traded in when the player has finished it for example?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
@ MrChuckles
Good point on Mass Effect 2.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
--------
The problem is the markup that retailers have been making for years on second hand games.
--------
The reasons for the markup on second hand games are pretty simple:
- Supply and demand.
- Running a game store is a pricey business. Just think of your local game retailer and calculate what the cost for all the games they have in the store at any given time is.
- If publishers want to discourage businesses to sell used games they need to offer better profit margins on new wares.
Also, a store that buys games takes all the risks associated with that purchase upon themselves. If the store buys a game and a day later the price is officially dropped below what the store paid for it then that's on them. No PriceProtection from publishers/mass retailers.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Oops.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
What retailers are doing is selling second hand games within days of the new release, undercutting the new game and cannabilising it's sales.
Yes, you do have the right to sell your game, and back in the day when you did so there was no harm done, it wasn't on shop shelves right above the new copies for £5 less, and it wasn't within days of launch.
Gamestops business model, and your dealings with them aren't as innocent and unimpactful as independant second hand sales, they are drasticaly undercutting sales and reducing revenue that the developers should have got in sales of new copies of their game. If online pass allows them to make up for loss revenue in sales of new copies of their games, then it's a fair price.
And you can still sell your games to gamestop, you just cn't sell a free multiplayer mode if you use it for more than 2 days yourself. If you want to sell on your free online mode, then don't redeem the online pass.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"We arent making enough money off our games, so we're going to punish our customers so we make more money" - has this approach worked in any other industry?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
1) I buy a game for full price in doing so i also pay for the right to use the game online.
2) I sell on the game to a friend along with my online pass (i cant very well play a game online i no longer own)
3) My friend has to pay for an online pass (hang on hasnt this already been payed for?)
1 + -1 = 0 so how do games companies loose out? they dont they just dont earn a bonus...
We arn't the enemy devs. Woudlnt a change of licence stating that the game cannot be resold within say a month of release do a better job of solving the problem...just saying
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Why is no-one in the industry asking the right questions? Instead of asking "How can we squeeze more out of everyone?" they need to ask "Why is the used market so big and popular?"
The answer to that is easy of course: used games are cheaper than new ones!
With that little mystery solved, it should therefore follow that if publisher x wants to sell more of "new" product y, then the price of y should be reduced. But no. Instead of following logic and reason, this arse-backwards, greedy industry spends its time concocting new and idiotic ways to charge people for the same old tat.
It also needs to stop over-saturating the market with generic, lazy, unoriginal, middle-of-the-road rubbish.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
So, Game currently ships for £30, and is on the second hand shelf for £25. Therefore if said game shipped at £25, then 2nd hand gamers would buy it? Of course they wouldn't, they'd buy the 2nd hand copy for £20...
It's nothing to do with the original price of the game, it's the fact that the 2nd hand price is cheaper than it.
As for the other comment that 'The greed in this industry is really going to strangle the creativity' that is laughable. If it wasn't for the income, there would be no creativity. Every publisher would only wat to make the same cookie cutter games that are guaranteed to sell and therefore you'd only have one type of game to choose from. If more money from sales went to the devs then they'd be able to be MORE creative, instead of the money going to retailers to make your shopping experience more pleasurable.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Then, why in the boxes, isn't there a distributed flyer from the creators presenting some of their thoughts on pre-owned sales? The message to convey, being that YES, the people that made what you're ready to play realise that you can trade it after...But know that it's not helping us, and we don't approve, and it can carry consequences to future 'productivity'.
"people need to realise that selling your games back to gamestop isn't the same as selling games you finished a year ago to your friend, or in the buyandsell."
If that's true, then what are "they" doing to inform people? That's where I call shenanigans on these passes, that they're not being used as any step towards a solution, but instead as a stand-in for one. A plaster over a gaping wound.
Smoking was fashionable once, too, but there's no arguing its damaging effect.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
@77: Except, that that's completely unsustainable, just ask Activision, in all seriousness. CoD's in a creativity vacuum, it's air gradually expiring and the golden eggs, Hero/Hawk have both gone off.
Further, your point about the price that a shop sells the game to the customer is not the key thing, because it fails to recognise the factor of how much the store is buying the games in for, to sell to the customer.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"As for the other comment that 'The greed in this industry is really going to strangle the creativity' that is laughable. If it wasn't for the income, there would be no creativity. Every publisher would only wat to make the same cookie cutter games that are guaranteed to sell and therefore you'd only have one type of game to choose from."
I cant believe you were serious when you typed this. You can already see the greed strangling the creativity out of the industry through the biggest selling game ever made. COD. The game hasnt changed in years, and thats not down to them perfecting the experience, (as many other fps can easily prove) its because it sells. GREED KILLING THE INDUSTRY, this online pass shit is just another extension of that.
Buffon Bassoon - *sigh* he HAS already been paid for it - When the initial sale took place. Why does he deserve more money off the second hand sales? He doesnt, its just greed.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Lets hope that MK9 gets decent monitoring of the net code for bugs cheats etc, also i'm sure that the devs will be releasing DLC for this, so they'll be recouping full costs for that regardless whether bought new or 2nd hand, more importantly the game had best be good!!!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
(6)
Comment below viewing threshold Show
You are still tethered to them for as long as you are playing online.
PC games are kind of different but LIVE & PSN are kind of locked down.
It's fair for me as i dont pay full price & I don't trade in my games.
It's a no Brainer for them to do this & fair really.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
1) I buy a game for full price in doing so i also pay for the right to use the game online.
2) I sell on the game to a friend along with my online pass (i cant very well play a game online i no longer own)
3) My friend has to pay for an online pass (hang on hasnt this already been payed for?)
this isn't about you selling a game to a friend, thats harmless, this is about gamestop undercutting new game sales. Two days after launch, two copies of Portal 2 are on the shelf, one costs £35, it's new, the other £30 it's used... Which does the consumer buy? So thats in the launch week, a large volume of new games sales are lost because retailers make it so easy to buy second gand titles days after launch. This isn't a car boot sale, it's a massive international industry which is drastically reducing sales of new games, and thus a huge number of sales with no profits going to the developers. That is a serious problem. Online pass is their way of saying, hey, you know that fun online multiplayer that we always gave you for free? Well it's still going to be free if you buy it new, but if you buy it via the gamestop loop where we get nothing, then you'll have to pay us a small one of fee for online access.
1 + -1 = 0 so how do games companies loose out? they dont they just dont earn a bonus...
We arn't the enemy devs. Woudlnt a change of licence stating that the game cannot be resold within say a month of release do a better job of solving the problem...just saying
it certainly would, but who's going to enforce that rule? Can you imagine the internet outrage?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
This just proves of how bad things are getting. Because of high cost and trying to make a game that is creative is rare nowadays, its the reason why we dont see much variety this gen. Lots of devs getting shut down this gen.
If u wanted to bring your game to a friends house to play, couldnt u just sign in your account on their console so u guys could play online?
But ED BOON is a hypocrite himself, he rips us off for making us buy something thats already on DISC, im talking about characters, costumes, and fatalities.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I like f3r613's idea of not reselling a game within a specified period of time after launch - 1 or 2 months, maybe, when most sales take place. Getting the retailers to agree with that might be slightly tricky, though - particularly with somewhere like CEX, where all of their products are second-hand.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
you ever finished a game in one weekend, not bothered with the multiplayer (if the game has one), and then trade it in fast to get the most money out of it? I have done it, and no I don't usually play a single player game more than once, just don't have the time.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
you ever finished a game in one weekend, not bothered with the multiplayer (if the game has one), and then trade it in fast to get the most money out of it? I have done it, and no I don't usually play a single player game more than once, just don't have the time.
this
blaming the devs for games being traded in 3 days after purchase is ridiculous, it happens to even the best games.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Also "There are untold million of dollars of product development and research that's gone into the game and the infrastructure of the online system."
They really shouldn't be 'untold millions', this is the sort of thing you should be keeping a track of.
I favoured Project Ten-dollar, bonus, but unnecessary content for first time buyers. The reaction was so negative, that this is what we got instead, necessary features locked out. Gamers need to know when they're on to a good thing and stop acting so entitled.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
thats some strange logic... so you think it's beneficial to the devs to have loads of people playing their game online with not a penny going back to them? Because that way yet more players will be entitled to join the online community? Will this influx of new players wantinmg to experience the bustling online MK community also buy second hand?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
It's nothing to do with the original price of the game, it's the fact that the 2nd hand price is cheaper than it. "
Ok so taking this to it's logical extreme. If you (as a game developer) had your way, you'd like an industry that sets game prices at what? £60, £70, £80 per game? While also having a built in mechanism that monopolises the market so consumers have no choice to find a cheaper 2nd hand copy? I'm sorry but that's just wrong. It's not my fault that your publisher has you signed against a contract that fucks your profit margin up the arse.
In addition…. if increased revenue breeds creativity as you suggest, can you explain to me why the same massively successfully and profitable online shooter by the name of Call of Duty has enjoyed the same tired, derivative model for several years now? Show me the creativity in that?
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of massive retailers employing the current tactics but the mechanism that publishers are using to combat it is targeting customers, not retailers.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Dont see what all the fuss is about really.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Eventually, as publishers don't get their '#1 on day of release' headlines, they are forced to drop the price to attract more buyers to recoup the costs of development etc.
If more people will adopt this attitude, then we can turn the 'fleece the consumer' attitude on its head and save a few quid in the long run.
After all, this attitude from the publisher/developer is designed to take more money from the consumer, when it is the retailer that is reaping the biggest reward (by getting paid twice or more for selling one copy of the game) and this 'solution' doesn't affect that at all, which I think is what most people are against.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
First they rant about piracy and with drastical mesures kill of most of the PC business.
Then consoles have their problem of piracy but it is not as relevant as pc so they nag about used games.
Next they probably will give you a game for full price and you can activate it once if you pay 5$.
Something is seriously wrong with the gaming business yeah as somebody mentioned capitalism at its finest. I never understood why they keep churning out sequel after sequel of a game to just satisfy their shareholders.
The biggest problem of the gaming industry is that it became an industry in the first place.
I always wonder if they can get anymore soulless.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Your life must be pretty ace if all you can complain about is games. I wish it were that easy for me.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
You do know that we are at a gaming site right?
Not that I don't have anything else to complain about but it would kind of feel strange to talk about money problems or my job.
Kind of real strange next time I go to the bank I think I will ask for the latest gaming news they might have some.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Dear Mr. Boon,
In a free market system the value of the product is set by market demand and the individual selling - you have absolutely no right to even think that you can charge people extra because you don't think they paid the 'correct' price for the game. What's next, places that sell games at less than RRP don't come with a pass? Your game is £44.99 on Amazon right now, but only £29.98 at ShopTo - does that mean that ShopTo are stealing from you by selling it at less than RRP?
Respect and support your customers, and they will respect and support you - as an example, please see Valve.
Sincerely,
A previously loyal fan.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I already pay xbox live? I WONT PAY MORE THAN THAT
mr. BOON: a game cant be got for 20$ at gamestop I ussually get them for 40 or even 50
Mr. BOON: mortal Kombat died with mk trilogy, after trilogy ALL OF YOU GAMES ARE MORTAL CRAP.
Mr BOON: you preffer to kill secon hand market than to fight piracy....BUT YOU KNOW WHAT?? I HAVE YOUR GAME AND I HAVE YOUR PASS...WITHOUT PAYING EVEN A CENT: HOW? THE DOWNLOADED JACK SPARROW VERSION...thats what you deserve.