Deacon wrote:Blackjack wrote:Well, seeing as my initial point, back at the start of the thread, was that "Online passes sound fair enough to me.", I'd say that fairness in totally relevant.
Please tell me you did not just take an idiomatic turn of phrase and try to later parse it literally to fit your argument. Now that is Fugglian.
What's most interesting to me is that this whole thing isn't interesting to me. I just don't play console games much anymore. I barely play PC games, and those are generally just the crown jewels available through Steam, such as most recently Portal 2 and Left 4 Dead. I'm perfectly willing to let the already massively profitable
record labels movie studiosgame distributors like EA continue to shoot themselves in the foot, fighting users, not letting them pay for and enjoy the content in the manner of their choosing, forcing them to do it there way in order to squeeze as much blood from that turnip as possible and being surprised when their finicky systems upset their consumer. EA already has a long-standing track record of repeatedly punching their customers and then crapping in the wound, so this kind of treatment doesn't surprise me.
Hm, I suppose that was a bit of a stretch. Still, though, I think they're fair.
Real original point: Good/bad business idea? I can see the merits that by, in a roundabout way, increasing the prices of second-hand games, you're limiting people from experiencing a wider range of games; and by limiting the range, you're limiting people from discovering and getting interested in new series, which in turns means they might not buy your sequel.
However, I just don't believe that outweighs the idea that these Online Passes are both paying for maintaining the online services they allow you to access, but also sustaining the companies that are using the money they generate from the games/passes to create sequels and new games, that in turn will keep the cycle going.
These publishing companies are huge, yes. They're rich, sometimes (Hello, EA). EA has a bazillion dollars, but it doesn't have it spare. One publisher will work for many developers, and they'll say to those devlopers, "We'll pay for your game, here's X money. We want that back and a profit." If they don't make that money back, or even a large enough profit, they won't support them for another game. This is even harder for new, untested IP.
I suppose I believe that, at the cost of limiting some gamers, they're increasing the chance/quality of games in the future.
Also, please don't get me wrong, I have no love for EA or publishers in general, and all the times they shoot themselves in the foot I giggle (Excessive DRM that makes you want to pirate, anyone?); but I want to support developers, and if these Online Passes please their finecky and unstable masters enough to give them another run, I think they're good in the long run.