going online with used games

[hbkprm]

its ur call if you want to pay extra for online for a used game and im aganst it.

[megasdkirby]

I rarely play online, so no way.

[Rickstilwell1]

Same here I just never play games online. One player mode is fun enough for me. I will still buy the games used.

[Iron Draggon]

Not an issue for me cause I only buy new games so I'm already paying more.

[grolt]

I hardly online game as is, and even if I did want to go online with a used game that offered the service up at a premium I'd boycot the upgrade out of principle. I understand they need to combat the used game market, but I think there have been far more novel ways, like Square Enix having gamer codes for prizes and such or other games offering up free DLC with a new purchase. Give new buyers something EXTRA rather than taking something AWAY from used gamers. Makes sense to me.

[Cobra Commander]

The only games I play online are Left for Dead, Gears of War, Rock Band, and Borderlands. But if I can't play a used game online for free, then I won't play the damn thing at all. Screw it.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Since GameStop doesn't typically price used games far below the price of new games, the additional $5/$10 to play online may level out the total cost, making the new game the more attractive prospect.

However, in the event that I do come across a used game A.) that I want and B.) that's much cheaper even WITH the added cost of an online license, I don't have any ethical issue with paying that company to pay online.

I understand that game companies don't see a dime from used game purchases, and if this helps offset the losses from that AND financially supports game company X's next venture, that's fine with me, no sense of entitlement here.

[megasdkirby]

I understand that game companies don't see a dime from used game purchases, and if this helps offset the losses from that AND financially supports game company X's next venture, that's fine with me, no sense of entitlement here.

Yes, but if one is already paying a premium to play online (Xbox Live Gold), there is simply no need to pay more. Then Xbox Live, for instance, is basically useless in that respect.

[norkusa]

I already pay extra to play online. It's called Xbox Live. If companies want me to pay money on top of that to play their used games online, then screw em.

[megasdkirby]

I already pay extra to play online. It's called Xbox Live. If companies want me to pay money on top of that to play their used games online, then screw em.

This is a reason why I don't wish to play games like Phantasy Star Universe. On top of paying $50 a year (max) for Xbox Live, I have to pay $10 a MONTH for a stinking Guardian License? And what's worse is that, if i don't continue paying, in three months all my hard work will be deleted/erased?

No thanks.

Some may argue with "But it's only $10 to get a permanent license" and what not. But if I am already paying X amount to play online, there is simply NO reason to charge more, no matter what reasoning is given.

That is simply not acceptable.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Yes, but if one is already paying a premium to play online (Xbox Live Gold), there is simply no need to pay more. Then Xbox Live, for instance, is basically useless in that respect.

It's not that simple.

I don't think the XBLA fee is "useless". It's pretty obvious that features like cross-game-chat, and the bandwidth to stream Netflix amongst other things are a part of that yearly fee.

However, (and I could be wrong) I don't think game companies see a dime from XBLA subscription costs.

A.) You're paying Microsoft a premium. I don't personally know how they utilize that fee in terms of supporting the service, but I would venture to guess that not much if any of it gets distributed to pay the 3rd party companies who produce the hundreds of disk based games with online play released ever year.

B.) Even IF that's the case, that analogy only works for XBLA. Nintendo and Sony don't charge for online play, game companies need to maintain their own servers at their own cost.

I get that people don't like paying more for things, and this decison will never, ever be a popular one ... but we've all had the discussion a lot here (and likely elsewhere) in recent years - game companies don't see a dime from used game sales, and it is in some way hurting the industry on the creative/production/developer side of things.

If this is a way to legitimately give back, I don't personally have a problem doing it.

I probably won't do so for every single game, and it may drive me to buy more new than used ... but I don't see that as a bad thing at all.

[megasdkirby]

A.) You're paying Microsoft a premium. I don't personally know how they utilize that fee in terms of supporting the service, but I would venture to guess that not much if any of it gets distributed to pay the 3rd party companies who produce the hundreds of online disk based games with online play released ever year.

In which case, I rather just pay the manufacturer directly. I presume the purpose of Xbox Live is to have a "one place for all" for online gaming needs. If that's the case, and at least regarding Xbox Live, companies should not charge extra, even if none of the profits are shared with them. Why? Because I am already paying for a service that, in theory, should let me play online. Then what would be the point of paying Microsoft $50 a year to "play online", if I can just pay the company who makes the game the fee directly to do so? Makes no sense, but it seems that this is what companies want to do.


B.) Even IF that's the case,that analogy only works for XBLA. Nintendo and Sony don't charge for online play, game companies need to maintain their own servers at their own cost.

Agreed. I would only accept the charge to those companies who don't already charge a premium. If I want to play SSF4 on the Xbox 360, then the $50 I pay a year is enough. If I want to play on the PS3, then I understand the company charnge a fee to play, since Sony does not charge a premium.


I get that people don't like paying more for things, and this decison will never, ever be a popular one ... but we've all had the discussion a lot here (and likely elsewhere) in recent years - game companies don't see a dime from used game sales, and it is in some way hurting the industry at on the creative/production/developer side.

For me, I don't mind paying for a service if I am not already paying for the service to begin with. If I did not pay for Xbox Live Gold, then I would gladly pay a fee to play online, as I know it goes directly to the manufacturer to pay for their expenses. But to pay "twice" is where I draw the line.

Also, when I buy something, it's mine. Meaning, that I can do whatever I want with it. So if I wanted to sell it afterward, I don't need any blessing from the manufacturer to do so. Nor do I have to give a cut of my profits to them, because it's my item. If I were to sell using a venue like Ebay, then I understand the fees. But I don't give any profit to the manufacturer, nor is the manufacturer required to get anything, because it's my item.

By the way, if these responses seem a bit hard, I apologize as it's not my intention. In my book, you are awesome, Franky. :D

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

By the way, if these responses seem a bit hard, I apologize as it's not my intention. In my book, you are awesome, Franky. :D

Harsh? No way man, this is what healthy, friendly debate looks like to me.

[swlovinist]

The short answer for me is no. I am not going to pay more to go online for a used game. I hope that the public outcry against it will speak volumes. There are plenty of my games that I can go online and play that are for free. I understand that game compnanies are at a crossroads, but if they think that people are going to put up with this crap they are in for a surprise.

[kupomogli]

Like Iron Dragoon, most every game I purchase is new. I rarely ever buy a used game. If it so happened that I bought a used game and then had to pay to play online, then I'd use that seven day return policy to get a refund.

Next thing you know they're going to start charging to unlock new costumes, levels, and modes that are already on the disc. Oh wait. They already do this. Capcom specifically. :bad-words:

[Rickstilwell1]

Like Iron Dragoon, most every game I purchase is new. I rarely ever buy a used game. If it so happened that I bought a used game and then had to pay to play online, then I'd use that seven day return policy to get a refund.

Next thing you know they're going to start charging to unlock new costumes, levels, and modes that are already on the disc. Oh wait. They already do this. Capcom specifically. :bad-words:

Couldn't you do that with Action Replay instead plus activate all the cool normal cheats?

[Andred]

I'm pretty sure EA didn't get their metrics from DP when they were deciding whether to do this. I think most of us are single-player and retro type gamers. I know I am. I RARELY buy a current gen game so this really doesn't affect me. However, I wouldn't be persuaded to buy a new game over a used one because of this.... it would simply persuade me not to buy the game at all.

[brykasch]

I would never leave the online experience to the game companies, the ones who nickle and dime will continue to do so, and the ones who don't will want to charge for everything, more than what MS charges per month.

The extra fee EA is doing is only for sports games as they are the most played online games other than fps.

XBL if you look around can be had for as little as 36 a year which is 3 dollars a month for last.fm, netflix streaming, etc. Heck they even had a promotional thing for one month of gold for a dollar.

I don't buy sports games so it doesn't matter to me, and I rarely play online. But if it was a title I wanted to I would just have to figure in the extra 10 dollars ( if this plan spreads), and decide if its worth it.

[Flack]

I think I've already voiced my opinion on this, but ... I pretty much only buy used games at this point. Between kids and work and life I am finding less and less time to spend on gaming, especially modern gaming, and I just can't justify $60 prices. For the most part I buy games that are 6 months to a year old, when they are in the $30-$40 range, and I'll pay even less for sports titles that are a year or two old. I know for a fact that I paid around $10 for my copies of Madden and NBA Live, and quite often when I went online with NBA Live people were either cheating or I am the worst basketball player in the universe. Would I pay an additional $10 for that? Not very likely.

[skaar]

I voted for "questionabe" because it sounded funny.

[Richter Belmount]

I voted yes to not conform your non comforminty , by conforming to the nonconformist position for conforming by conforming.

[betamax001]

Most of the games I want to play online, none of my friends will probably get, so if they charge me to play online when I buy used, eh i wouldn't pay it. If I did get a new game it would be probably from Amazon, unless I get a gift card for a place like Best Buy. Usually on Amazon the newest games are usually a couple bucks off list price, usually matching GameStop's used prices. Plus no tax and free shipping if you spend over 25, which most new games are waaay over that so whatever.

[NayusDante]

Most of EA's online titles are yearly releases anyway (sports, Need for Speed, etc), so it's not like there's a huge chunk of people that buy their games used anyway. By the time their stuff gets down to cheap used prices, the new product is out and (from what I understand) server load for the old one goes close to dead. If anything, a $10 online key might give those fifteen or so people playing NBA 2010 in 2015 a way to keep the servers up.


Online gaming was TEH SHIZNIT until about 2005, and it had been downhill since 2002 or so. I remember people actually chatting with proper grammar in those days. Fast forward to 2010, and I haven't found a single new online game I enjoy playing since Counter-Strike Source. UT3 doesn't have the same mod community that the others did, otherwise I'd be on that quite often. Borderlands was fun with some friends, but it's not the kind of game I'd really enjoy matchmaking with.

Online gaming isn't what it used to be, because everyone plays. It's not the same crowd, now with the ubiquitous nature of Internet-capable consoles. I remember it finally clicked for me back in my senior year of high school, when someone saw me playing Oblivion on my laptop. "What's that?" he asked. "It's a single-player RPG set in a huge open world," I respond. He just says, "so it's like WoW but without anybody playing. Why in the world would you still be playing games alone these days? That's, like, stupid!"

As it stands now, I wouldn't pay simply because I don't play the kinds of games that EA puts out. If something neat came along with a similar license system, it would really depend on the game, because playing with different crowds is a very different experience. I might pay for a BlazBlue license, but not Smash Bros.

[ScourDX]

The only game I purchased used and go online was Starcraft.

[exit]

I buy the games I want new and by the time I get an older game, the online community is a ghost town anyway. So while I do think the fee is complete BS, it more than likely won't have any kind of impact on my gaming lifestyle.

[Famidrive-16]

For the first time the other day, I bought one of the SSF4 costume packs. I'm dirty.

[Oobgarm]

questionabe

[The 1 2 P]

I don't buy used games(unless it's rare or worth money) but if I did I still wouldn't pay that extra fee. It would be like a women having to pay extra for wearing her 18 hour bra for more than 18 hours straight. I'm not sure what that has to do with this but it popped in my head for some reason. Anyway, I don't think that game companies should get paid twice for the same product so I'm not supporting this.