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 studios game 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.

Blackjack wrote:these Online Passes are both paying for maintaining the online services they allow you to access

The network infrastructure can exist that consists of merely a connection between the consoles, with one acting as the "host", and uses absolutely none of their equipment. Judging from the quality of EA's dedicated servers, this would actually be an improvement of service as well. Most games don't use dedicated server infrastructure for precisely that reason (plus, you don't need to worry about them shutting the servers down for your game). This would be a far better solution - saves the company money and improves QoS for the consumer. The fact that EA chose the $10 online charge instead says wonders about their lack of business acumen.

I wasn't talking about dedicated servers in that sense. I can't for the life of me think of a game that uses dedicated servers on a console.
No, they all use the system you described already.

They still need servers for it, though.

The Microtransactions and Project Ten Dollar episodes of Extra Credits would good contributions to this discussion in case you haven't already seen them.

Blackjack wrote:I wasn't talking about dedicated servers in that sense. I can't for the life of me think of a game that uses dedicated servers on a console.
No, they all use the system you described already.

They still need servers for it, though.

No, they don't - at least not provided by the publisher. Halo 2, for instance, kept going for the longest time. The server shutdown that finally closed the book on it? It wasn't a Bungie server shutdown for Halo 2. It was a Microsoft one - they were shutting down all the servers for the entire Xbox Live service for original Xbox games. I already pay Microsoft $60 to use their servers every year. I don't think EA should get a cut of that because they want to waste time routing network connections through extraneous servers.

Those were both really well thought out an insightful, Aza. I'm vaguely disappointed in you.

collegestudent22 wrote:No, they don't - at least not provided by the publisher. Halo 2, for instance, kept going for the longest time. The server shutdown that finally closed the book on it? It wasn't a Bungie server shutdown for Halo 2. It was a Microsoft one - they were shutting down all the servers for the entire Xbox Live service for original Xbox games. I already pay Microsoft $60 to use their servers every year. I don't think EA should get a cut of that because they want to waste time routing network connections through extraneous servers.

Yes, they do.
You're correct, it wasn't a bungie server for Halo 2. It was a microsoft server.
Strangely, Microsoft was Halo's publisher, though. Huh.

The Xbox live does not support the servers for all games on their consoles, which is why publishers must utilise their own servers.
If you don't think EA should get a cut because you already pay Microsoft, well, that's your opinion; but the fact is those online services cost the publisher money that they don't get from your xbox live subscription.
The PS3 is exactly the same, and you don't pay a subscription to play online on one of those.

Blackjack wrote:

collegestudent22 wrote:No, they don't - at least not provided by the publisher. Halo 2, for instance, kept going for the longest time. The server shutdown that finally closed the book on it? It wasn't a Bungie server shutdown for Halo 2. It was a Microsoft one - they were shutting down all the servers for the entire Xbox Live service for original Xbox games. I already pay Microsoft $60 to use their servers every year. I don't think EA should get a cut of that because they want to waste time routing network connections through extraneous servers.

Yes, they do.
You're correct, it wasn't a bungie server for Halo 2. It was a microsoft server.
Strangely, Microsoft was Halo's publisher, though. Huh.

EA is rather unique in even having their own servers. Like I pointed out, Microsoft didn't have servers for Halo 2 because they published it. They had them because of Xbox Live - and Halo 2 just happened to use some of them. In fact, I watched recently a rather unique presentation about how the traffic of ALL Xbox Live games was relevant in determining how many servers they needed, and when to get them.

The Xbox live does not support the servers for all games on their consoles, which is why publishers must utilise their own servers.

Xbox Live servers support every single game on the Xbox 360. If publishers (really, just EA) choose not to use that, and instead force me to go through their servers, it provides no benefit to me (in fact, it's even worse, as I get stupid crap like being able to get online, but not play), and a significant cost for them. There is no reason for it, and it doesn't make the $10 Online Pass thing any more sensible.

The PS3 is exactly the same, and you don't pay a subscription to play online on one of those.

Because Sony doesn't charge for the use of their servers, that means EA should be able to charge for their extraneous, problem-creating servers? That line of reasoning is completely nonsensical.

Blackjack wrote:The Xbox live does not support the servers for all games on their consoles, which is why publishers must utilise their own servers.

Read that back to yourself. A proper rewording could be, "Some publishers choose to force players through their own proprietary servers of questionable performance and reliability rather than to utilize the Microsoft infrastructure for which you're already playing. They then charge you for the privilege of playing the game you bought and downloading the data they intentionally left off your game disc, because they think they can get more money from you that way than to integrate nicely with Microsoft's XBOX Live solution."

Hey, Deacon, it's Microsoft on Line 1. They're wondering if you could be apart of their Imperial Lawyer Troop? At least you wouldn't be asked to shoot at rebels. You can even start at the First Lieutenant level.

Heh, I'm sure if I were a lawyer I'd make a lot more money and feel a lot worse about it

Blackjack, did you watch those two videos FireAza linked you to?

Deacon wrote:Those were both really well thought out an insightful, Aza. I'm vaguely disappointed in you.

I have my moments

Also, if you (or anyone else for that matter) care a little more deeply about videos games and where they're going, and are not already watching Extra Credits, you should be.

I'd agree. I often (but don't always) agree with their thoughts on the industry, and they often have good points to make about where it is (and should be) going - especially about the idea that games can, and should, occasionally make you think. Aspire to be art, as well as entertainment.

I think the follow up Jimquisition makes some really good points here. Specifically, it blows the following argument to shit:

these Online Passes are both paying for maintaining the online services they allow you to access

That price comes out of the original purchase. Since used games are merely a transfer of a slot that already exists - one that does not require a continual subscription - it should not require payment to the publisher, any more than you have to pay again for a parking meter if a second driver pull up to one that has time remaining.

Here is the solution to the "problem" of used games - DLC, both paid and free, to encourage gamers to keep their games longer instead of trading them in, and preorder bonuses to encourage new sales. That's a far better solution than cutting out half the game unless you pay your additional entrance fee.