"Online Pass" system to screw over resellers

[AppleQueso]

tbh, I don't blame the companies who do this one bit. What's wrong with adding incentives for buying new? The project $10 thing that EA does works well too - damn straight I'll buy the new copy over the used if I care about those features. They aren't "screwing" people so much as "rewarding" those who buy something when it is brand new.

Besides, MK will be $20 new by Xmas if not sooner. That will be the time to buy it (new)!

Thing is, they're doing everything they can to make sure that people don't know about this "feature". It's deceptive.

[CRTGAMER]

Online Pass = Double Dipping Greed
I don't think this will kill used game sales in the long term, online support eventually goes away as a newer console comes out. I buy tons of inexpensive used PS2 games right now that are no longer supported online.

[AppleQueso]

Can anyone tell me why the gaming industry, currently more prosperous and profitable than its ever been before, suddenly feels so threatened by the used game market?

[ZenLogikos]

They don't "suddenly", but with online connectivity of consoles, they now have a tool to use in their efforts to reduce the used game market.

That is exactly what they are trying to do, and it's well within their rights. They make ZERO dollars from reselling. Why not try to "encourage" more people to buy new?

[Inazuma]

Warner Bros. looks set to join THQ and Electronic Arts in embracing the "online pass" scheme -- where buyers of used games have to purchase a $10 code in order to use a game's multiplayer function.

*adds Warner Bros, THQ and EA to his boycott list* Oh, EA was already on there...

No joke. I'm seriously boycotting these companies. This kind of bullshit really pisses me off and I have to make sure I do my part to not support it. I don't give a fuck if these companies have every right to pull this shit. I have a right to choose not to support it, so that is what I will do.

[MrPopo]

This is only one step away from total circumvention of the First-sale doctrine. It's borderline illegal, and it would be a good day to see them sued for this. If you don't know what that means, read up on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

I don't see how this is anywhere close to illegal. They aren't preventing you from purchasing the game or playing it on your PS3. What they are doing is preventing you from using their online servers unless you pay money. MMOs have been doing this for years.

[SplashChick]

This is only one step away from total circumvention of the First-sale doctrine. It's borderline illegal, and it would be a good day to see them sued for this. If you don't know what that means, read up on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

I don't see how this is anywhere close to illegal. They aren't preventing you from purchasing the game or playing it on your PS3. What they are doing is preventing you from using their online servers unless you pay money. MMOs have been doing this for years.

Show me the MMO that specifically doesn't tell you about any subscription fees, then bills you at the end of the month without your consent. Then you'll have a comparable point.

[Ivo]

That doesn't make any sense. This is only one step away from total circumvention of the First-sale doctrine. It's borderline illegal, and it would be a good day to see them sued for this. If you don't know what that means, read up on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

How does it work with Battle.net? I had the impression that each CD-key from Blizzard games is associated with an account and possibly it is permanent?

Anyway I am not sure that 1st-sale-doctrine works here. The game can be sold used. The online service may be legally an extra. I think this will also depend on how they advertise it: for example it may be different it is advertised as an in-built feature of the game itself as opposed to a service that they provide to buyers of the game.

So I'm not sure that applies to "online pass" schemes. In any case I think the fair way to do this kind of thing is to sell the game cheaper and then every user that wants to take it online pays a bit as appropriate to cover the server costs - independently of whether they got the game new or used, each online user buys an online pass.

Under the situation above, can one generalize that just as there are pre-order bonuses or other merchandising (a hat perhaps) associated with new purchases. Perfectly legal I assume. It would then be probably legal to waive the online pass cost for a customer that pre-ordered or purchased the game new? The the person purchasing the game new can still re-sell the "free online pass" new as long as they don't redeem their online pass offer, just like they could re-sell a hat that came with a game as new if they never used it.

Ivo.

[Ivo]

Show me the MMO that specifically doesn't tell you about any subscription fees, then bills you at the end of the month without your consent. Then you'll have a comparable point.

I fail to see how they are doing anything similar to that with MK9.
A customer buying the used game will be unable to join the servers as I understand it. Surely that is very different from being able to join the servers and then being billed later.

Perhaps you meant to write: show me the MMO that doesn't tell you that if you sell it used to someone else they can not use the subscription fees that you have already paid for.
To which I reply that most if not all MMOs don't even let you transfer your account according to their terms of use. So any paid subscription fees you have will go to waste unless you are willing to go "outside" the rules.

Ivo.

[Ack]

Is it just online multiplayer that's being affected, or multiplayer in general? Because I don't play console games online, so this really won't affect me much if it's only online stuff.

Also, anybody know what the achievements list will be? Will this affect those? I just wonder about how this will influence multiplayer achievements.