A defence of the Online Pass system

I agree whole heartedly.

I once read a comment form someone within the industry talking about the cost of making games. He basically said 'we're not making games for $1 or 2 million and selling them at $50 each any more. now they cost $40 or 50 million and we still sell them at $50 each'.

Fact is, games cost incredibly large sums of money to make, and developers are losing money from sales within weeks of shipping. Of course, yes they make money overall, but the margins, unless you happen to be selling CoD, are fairly small. Add on to that the constant cost of the multiplayer, and costs go up yet again.

I have no problem with the online pass idea. For one thing it's a fail safe, none of the developers want you to buy the online pass, what they want is for you to buy the game new.

The way I see it, with costs exponentially higher than ever for making games, developers have 2 choices, increase the base cost of a new game to the consumer by $10 or 20, or stick on the online pass thus allowing people the option of playing online is they so desire.

I really can't fault them for it.

EA's Online Pass is an excuse to limit content to one Gamertag rather than one console. What about families with several kids and one console? Should they have to shell out 800MSP for each extra child?

What happens to people who use offline profiles because they don't play games online? EA requires you to be connected to their servers to access features they lock with Online Pass. They even used Online Pass with Dragon Age II, a game with no multiplayer features whatsoever, there's no excusing that.

I still don't agree with the view that pre-owned games are detrimental to profits, either. The publisher has already made its money on a pre-owned game, because it was previously bought new. Car manufacturers don't see any profits from second-hand sales, so why should games publishers?

The pre-owned market in the UK is fairly low-key, with shops like CEX, and smaller sections in the highstreet stores.

However, apparently in the US, all the major stores push second-hand sales massively. Basically any used sale is pure profit, so they are fanatical about pushing pre-owned games. They don't seem to realise that by cutting off sales of new titles, they're making enemies of the very companies who produce their stock.

An extra tenner for online play should mean these shops will have to sell their titles cheaper, and is probably, of all available options, the least harmful to the end user - a single use password, for example, would kill the second-hand market dead.

EA's Online Pass is an excuse to limit content to one Gamertag rather than one console. What about families with several kids and one console? Should they have to shell out 800MSP for each extra child?

What happens to people who use offline profiles because they don't play games online? EA requires you to be connected to their servers to access features they lock with Online Pass. They even used Online Pass with Dragon Age II, a game with no multiplayer features whatsoever, there's no excusing that.

I still don't agree with the view that pre-owned games are detrimental to profits, either. The publisher has already made its money on a pre-owned game, because it was previously bought new. Car manufacturers don't see any profits from second-hand sales, so why should games publishers?

Because a game costs 10's of millions to make then sells for 40 quid each. Car manufacturers tend to use the same base models, the same engine design etc over and over in different vehicles and new cars sell for Thousands. The economics just don't match up. Sure manufacturers spend a lot of money on designing new cars, new engines, but not every year, their designs last a long time with only minimal tweaking and upgrade to suit a new vehicle. It's the equivilant of Bethesda spending 40 million making Fallout 3 then trying to claim that New Vegas cost 40 million to make as well. It didn't, not even close, it probably cost a million or 2, maybe as high as 5 at a push. But car manufacturers do that every year, a new model, with slight improvements and it's passed off as a brand new vehicle. The economics are just vastly different, you can't compare the two effectively.

As for DA2, the online pass is optional, nothing is taken away from the game if you don't use it, it's just there to add to the users experience. completely optional, you don't need it, you can't use that as an argument.

And you really think EA have done this purely to rip off families? Really?

Look, the reality is that 2nd hand gaming gives 0 money to developers and everything to the retailer. Retailers take about 5-10 quid of every sale from a new game at most, 2nd hand they get that much from just selling a 3 year old game.

I agree with the 2nd hand market being there, but I also agree with developers trying to recoup losses as long as it's fair, and so far, regardless of whether people like it or not, it IS fair as far as I'm concerned.

Who says games cost tens of millions to make? I haven't seen any reliable statistics on the cost of making games. Call of Duty might possibly have cost that much, but I doubt anything else would. And suggesting that developers start from scratch every time except for sequels is naïve, a well-known programming motto is "don't re-invent the wheel".

The car analogy is sound because once the manufacturer has sold a product, they have no right to any further profit from it. Buying second-hand is no more a "lost sale" than someone buying a different product altogether. The second-hand market is taking nothing away from the manufacturer, and of course the retailer is making all the profit, they are reselling something they have bought. The idea that publishers are "recouping losses" by making you pay extra for integral features unless you buy new is laughable, they're just profiteering.

I brought up the example of a family with several children as an example of how someone could be following EA's "rules" and still lose out.

I lost out on nearly all the extras in the Signature Edition of Dragon Age II because I can't be online all the time I'm playing. It's ridiculous to put online-only features in a single player game. The argument that it's optional is redundant, everything is optional in gaming, including buying the thing in the first place.

i totally agree with them ,at first i didnt but in these financial times if it helps them keep up to standard in making top games i agree , i buy games on release if i want them so i get the online pass free, but maybe they should have a standard online ea pass for all ea games not just 1 that would be fairer not for individual games , but if this is gonna be a permament feature it should be for all games released by the publisher !

Who says games cost tens of millions to make? I haven't seen any reliable statistics on the cost of making games. Call of Duty might possibly have cost that much, but I doubt anything else would. And suggesting that developers start from scratch every time except for sequels is naïve, a well-known programming motto is "don't re-invent the wheel".

The car analogy is sound because once the manufacturer has sold a product, they have no right to any further profit from it. Buying second-hand is no more a "lost sale" than someone buying a different product altogether. The second-hand market is taking nothing away from the manufacturer, and of course the retailer is making all the profit, they are reselling something they have bought. The idea that publishers are "recouping losses" by making you pay extra for integral features unless you buy new is laughable, they're just profiteering.

I brought up the example of a family with several children as an example of how someone could be following EA's "rules" and still lose out.

I lost out on nearly all the extras in the Signature Edition of Dragon Age II because I can't be online all the time I'm playing. It's ridiculous to put online-only features in a single player game. The argument that it's optional is redundant, everything is optional in gaming, including buying the thing in the first place.

Well for one thing, Pete Hines did. A good few years back, shortly after the release of Oblivion he openly told the Bethesda Forums that the cost to make Oblivion was over $40 million dollars. There are suggestions that games like RDR and GTA IV cost upwards of 100 million. I don't believe that personally, but I can easily see them being over 40 million.

I never suggested developers start from scratch every time, my point, which is very clear, is that they don't use the exact same base over and over again, it is worked on and tweaked and changed for every sequel, and every new ip is heavily different, by comparison, a car manufacturer will make release a hatchback this year, that will be the same car slightly retuned and tweaked every year, the costs are significantly different, especially when you consider the difference in cost between a car and a video game.

The comparison IS redundant, no matter how much you wish it otherwise for the simple fact that cars cost Thousands to buy new, and a game is 40 quid. The economics don't match up in any credible way. The price for the consumer is astronomically different, and yet the costs to the developer/manufacturer are comparable. Bottom line, car manufacturers get far more income from the sale of any car compared to production costs than developers do from the sale of an individual video game.

Further more, whilst the cost to manufacture cars has increased and continues to do so, the price tag has also increased to compensate. On the other hand, video games have increased in cost exponentially, costing 20 or 30 times as much to make now as they did 10 or 12 years ago, and yet the price tag has remained exactly the same. Games cost significantly more to make, but they don't make any more money to compensate.

To call it profiteering when the reality is that making video games is more expensive, and the 2nd hand market is more profitable than ever is ignorant and insulting. Other industries can balance the costs and these losses by increasing initial purchase cost, the video game market can't do that, so it goes elsewhere. The point ALSO remains that EA and the others don't WANT anyone to buy these online passes, they want people to buy the games new. They're not charging you full price for a game brand new, then charging you for these features aswell. THAT would be profiteering. What they're doing is making it so the cost for someone to buy 2nd hand, plus the online pass is basically the same as if they had bought the game brand new. If those are your options, a lot of people will buy brand new instead. You can't fault them for that.

Developers are always going to try and fight against the 2nd hand market because it eats into their profits in a massive way, and I fully agree with them doing it as long as it doesn't become a case of them cheating the consumer, and like it or not, online passes AREN'T cheating the consumer. The passes are a fair price for people who want to use them. They're not priced to punish, only to balance the discount the consumer got from buying a game 2nd hand.

But maybe that's just me, perhaps I'm the bad guy for, y'know, wanting to support developers by giving them my money in exchange for a product they provide.

I have no argument with games rentals or the 2nd hand market, but I also believe that noone who chooses to go down these roads has any right to complain when a developer wants to profit from the transaction in some way, especially when these passes are optional, and that isn't a redundant argument at all, jsut the opposite, what IS redundant was your response saying 'everything is optional, including buying the thing in the first place' simply because it isn't an argument or defence of any kind, just a statement of blatant and irrelevant fact.

WIth DA, I rented it, played the whole game through, and got all the achievements. I can't comment on the signature edition, but I must say, I don't understand how you lost out on the extras. If you bought the game, you got the code and that was it, the game was available to you. As for being online, well you either are or you aren't. If you can't be online all the time for any reason, then you have to consider the logic behind your choosing to buy the signature edition knowing it comes with extra's that require you to be online. Furthermore, these extras are just that, extras, they're irrelevant to the game as a whole and nobody loses out by not having them. On top of that, modern gaming relies on its online access for updates, DLC, multiplayer et al. That's not EA's fault, that's just modern gaming. Regardless of the game you have, if you're not online, in many cases, you can't access online features, whether multiplayer, or DLC content. You can't single this out as an EA problem, nor an argument against online passes when this is just modern gaming in general, and none of it is relevant. Even your argument about the signature edition is irrelevant because, well, you've got the SE, including the online pass that comes free. That it requires you to be online is pretty standard for gaming now, and that you can't be online all the time is not EA's fault, nor their problem. It is, as I've said, just the way modern gaming is.

With regards to a family with several children, I undertand the argument, but I don't agree. If they're all playing on a single console, it doesn't matter if only one gamertag can use the pass, if they want the online capabilites, use that tag. Young kids are too young to really know or care about the online side, achievements etc, they just care about the game, give them the single player, they're fine. When they become teenagers, they may well know more about it, but they're also more likely to have their own consoles. They might have gold they might not, they might not even be online at all. But lets assume it's still 1 console and multiple gamertags. The games that require online access for gaming, ie CoD, kids shouldn't be playing, they're 18 for a reason,a nd I truly believe in that. If it doesn't need the online, ie, dragon age, then they're not losing out. Bottom line, they either have it all for themselves anyway, they're too young for it, they don't want it, or don't need it. I can see your argument, but I don't think it holds much merit if I'm honest.

This is an insidious idea. Yes it is greedy - and so to the greedy it's sound commecial sense. Games are already too expensive; there's no justification for £40 as the pricetag. They could easily be £20-25; that would be the best way to combat the terror that is the used market.

This policy has nothing to do with stopping used sales (which are legal and part of a functioning economy, I might add). The fact that you can buy a pass with M$ points just proves that the motivation is greed. It's likley that the scheme is something these publishers have in cahoots with M$ as a way to make more money - much like M$ charging for XBL and hosting advertising on your xbox. I don't like all this and I find it crass.

Gaming would die if the secondary market collapsed; shops like gamestation and game would close since at least 50% of their stock is used (and not just games, but consoles and peripherals).

This has nothing to do with beleaguered publishers in hard pressed times either. These guys are in business for themselves and are doing veryw ell thanks. This is just another revenue stream and that's all it will ever be. We don't owe them a living - and games aren't freebies.

If you want to support these schemes at least be honest about them. Don't pretend they are a bonus, or that they offset the 'extra' work in online games or any nonsense about secondary markets. It's just profiteering. Homefront is proof of this: THQ insist on these online passes and then also insist on the release of a shabby half baked game that was in no way ready for release. Is that a company that cares about gamers? As a result there's a disproportionate number of copies of HF now second hand!

Fact is, games cost incredibly large sums of money to make, and developers are losing money from sales within weeks of shipping.

This is very disingenuous:

Games cost large amounts of money, but they also make large amounts of money.

Developers aren't losing money from the sales at all; developers don't see profit from sales the publishers do. Developers likley get paid to make the game and then go on to the next. If the game succeeds or fails they've done their work. Of course if it fails they lilkey won't get another shot.

The online pass has nothing to do with compensating poor game developers at all.

EA's Online Pass is an excuse to limit content to one Gamertag rather than one console. What about families with several kids and one console? Should they have to shell out 800MSP for each extra child?

What happens to people who use offline profiles because they don't play games online? EA requires you to be connected to their servers to access features they lock with Online Pass. They even used Online Pass with Dragon Age II, a game with no multiplayer features whatsoever, there's no excusing that.

I still don't agree with the view that pre-owned games are detrimental to profits, either. The publisher has already made its money on a pre-owned game, because it was previously bought new. Car manufacturers don't see any profits from second-hand sales, so why should games publishers?

I agree entirely. Second hand sales are what drive shops like Game. Without them they'd be left with an online presence only (at best). Gaming shops would be a thing of the past.

Second hand sales are no business of the publisher. They are no longer his property. If i sell my games they are mine to sell. There is no legal, economic or moral precedent that entitles him to profit from that, private, transation. What would ebay have to say or amazon about all this? No one seems to complain to sothebys when they auction a famous painting -the money doesn't go to the painter's estate/relatives or himself (if he's still alive). So what makes games publisher think they they know better - it's because technology allows them to.

We already have to pay M$ to access the online portion of games we've paid for, askign us to pay a third time to play a game is just scamming us.

However, apparently in the US, all the major stores push second-hand sales massively. Basically any used sale is pure profit, so they are fanatical about pushing pre-owned games. They don't seem to realise that by cutting off sales of new titles, they're making enemies of the very companies who produce their stock.

They are not pure profit. Shops that buy in (or trade in, same difference) used products take the same risk as if it were new stock. There's no guarantee opeople will buy that stock.

The real quesiton is: would you buy a new game instead if it was the same price as the used copy you are intent on purchasing?

Just to clarify - I have absolutely no problem with pre-owned. As wishface observes, publishers have no legal or ethical right to dictate to the consumer what he or she can and cannot do with their purchase, and I agree that for many (most?) gamers second-hand stores are a lifeline. The queues outside my local CEX branch certainly give that impression...

That said, the industry consensus seems to be that pre-owned sales do take a sizeable chunk out of publisher revenues, and again, I don't see what's so harmful about attempting to recoup that cash and/or push more people towards premium product - providing there's no foul play, which sadly isn't quite the case at present.

Specifically as regards Homefront - yes, shipping the game with so many problems was a terrible move (and believe it or not, we have been chasing them about this) but in THQ's defence there's a two-day trial for second-hand buyers, so you can get some sense of the online without forking out.

I suspect friction over this issue originates in a wider assumption that if something's available over the internet, it should be free. That's a whole other can of worms, though.

That said, the industry consensus seems to be that pre-owned sales do take a sizeable chunk out of publisher revenues, and again, I don't see what's so harmful about attempting to recoup that cash and/or push more people towards premium product - providing there's no foul play, which sadly isn't quite the case at present.

Of course that's the industry consensus; they want more money and with M$ have found an easy revenue stream.

Preowned sales don't take a chunk out of publisher revenues becasuse they are not comparable sales. Every preowned copy has to come from the primary market. The only way it could be comparable is if the price of new product was the same as a second hand copy. It is completely flawed to assume that someone chooses to buy second hand on any other reason than price. But the publishers aren't interested in trying that route.

Specifically as regards Homefront - yes, shipping the game with so many problems was a terrible move (and believe it or not, we have been chasing them about this) but in THQ's defence there's a two-day trial for second-hand buyers, so you can get some sense of the online without forking out.

There's really no defence for HF. It should never, ever, have been released. To then require an online pass is just taking the piss, plain and simple.
A two day trial is meaningless since you can't try the game out without committing to a purchase, new or otherwise. There was no demo for this game, and now we know why. Frankly THQ deserve to take a massive hit for their actions over this, and Kaos need to learn how to design games. There's no excuse for that game at all.

That said, the industry consensus seems to be that pre-owned sales do take a sizeable chunk out of publisher revenues, and again, I don't see what's so harmful about attempting to recoup that cash and/or push more people towards premium product - providing there's no foul play, which sadly isn't quite the case at present.

Of course that's the industry consensus; they want more money and with M$ have found an easy revenue stream.

Preowned sales don't take a chunk out of publisher revenues becasuse they are not comparable sales. Every preowned copy has to come from the primary market. The only way it could be comparable is if the price of new product was the same as a second hand copy. It is completely flawed to assume that someone chooses to buy second hand on any other reason than price. But the publishers aren't interested in trying that route.

I don't quite follow your wording - could you clarify? Sure, assuming that one second-hand sale equals a lost sale for the publisher is silly, just as assuming that one pirated game equals a lost sale is silly, but leaping from that to the idea that the trade-in market has no impact on the industry is ludicrous. As somebody else in this thread noted, retailers now commonly push second-hand product over and above first-hand. That's their prerogative, but publishers have every justification to retaliate with pricing strategies that cut retailers out of the equation.

Regarding premium pricing in particular - there's a decent breakdown of the RRP knocking around somewhere, Eurogamer I think. I'd love to write something on the subject myself.

There's really no defence for HF. It should never, ever, have been released. To then require an online pass is just taking the piss, plain and simple.
A two day trial is meaningless since you can't try the game out without committing to a purchase, new or otherwise. There was no demo for this game, and now we know why. Frankly THQ deserve to take a massive hit for their actions over this, and Kaos need to learn how to design games. There's no excuse for that game at all.

You hate Homefront that much? It's far from a shining example of its kind, but the multiplayer is worthwhile once you get past the bugs, and the single player has its moments.

To be honest, I do think that the online pass is a good idea. Here's why: 1) If a pre-owned game is sold the retailer gets all the money ,and developer gets little or no money at all. 2)It will give the developers more money to make more games if the pass is bought or a new copy is sold. 3) Finally, it will give the player more incentive to play the game if they bought the pass because they had to pay more for it.

However, I do know why people don't like it; I don't like spending too much either. But I disagree with the way Mortal Kombat is using it by NOT telling people about on the box. There should be a panel on the back tell people or something like that.

I also think Mass Effect 2 did it wrong with the Cerberus network pass. The whole code was just extras and you could still play the game without it and it wasn't much of a reason to get it new (I did anyway!).

I think that the pass system should only be used for two reasons: 1) An online part of the game (I.e the online for Call Of Duty(not extras), so you can still play the offline mode) 2) If the companies put a huge amount of time, effort and money into their product, because they deserve to get some profit back for their work.

It's all about money. Wishface says £40 is too much for a game - whether this is true or not depends on the individual and their budget.

The problem is, the games industry is finding new ways to charge people. DLC is getting increasingly common, with many games being just enough to avoid looking empty. Some games are deliberately stripped of content to later be released as DLC. We all know it happens, and its getting more widespread. On-Disk DLC (with paid-for unlock codes) is the mother of all insults for a gamer.

This online-pass thing is just the next logical step. Once that has become the norm, the industry will find some other way to squeeze a bit more cash from the gamer's wallet.

Gamers want the Earth, but don't want to pay a penny. The industry wants to give you as little as possible and charge you as much as possible for it. And we fall for it every time, buying 1200msp map packs and costumes and all the other useless tat we lap up.

If we were consistantly getting AAA product, maybe the cost wouldn't be so tough to swallow, but the industry is increasingly releasing unfinished, broken, stripped-down product and charging you more and more to turn it into something fun. The massive increase in 2nd hand stock isn't just down to gamers preferences, it's a quality problem. People are returning all these sub-standard games and trying to claw some of the expense back.

The days of honest, value-for-money gaming are ending, and I think we're just gonna have to accept it.

I don't quite follow your wording - could you clarify? Sure, assuming that one second-hand sale equals a lost sale for the publisher is silly, just as assuming that one pirated game equals a lost sale is silly, but leaping from that to the idea that the trade-in market has no impact on the industry is ludicrous.

No impact is not the same thing has a negative impact. It's entirely fatuous for anyone to enter this debate on the assumption that there is a negative impact caused by the used market. There's no evidence to support or even suggest this. Used sales are not competing for new sales because of the price difference - even though some places sell used games at stupid prices (which is another argument). Like I said: who would buy a used game if they could buy a new copy, all wrapped and shiny, at the same price. No one. So where is the impact? What the industry doesn't understand is that people don't have the money and don't want to spend it on full price games, but the industry doesn't want to listen. That's their loss.

As somebody else in this thread noted, retailers now commonly push second-hand product over and above first-hand. That's their prerogative, but publishers have every justification to retaliate with pricing strategies that cut retailers out of the equation.

Retailers don't at all. That just doesn't happen. They might have a buy 2 for £20 kind of deal. But that isn't pushing preowned products over new at all.

Curtailing the seconedary market would destroy the primary market since these shops depend on used game/console revenue. No retailer would ever support such measures.

Regarding premium pricing in particular - there's a decent breakdown of the RRP knocking around somewhere, Eurogamer I think. I'd love to write something on the subject myself.

Games could be much cheaper. That's the bottom line. Given that people want the products, as evidence by the sale of used products, so a price reduction could easily lead to more sales to compensate at least. But the industry isn't interested in trying this route; only in pushing the pass code nonsense and lying about it.

You hate Homefront that much? It's far from a shining example of its kind, but the multiplayer is worthwhile once you get past the bugs, and the single player has its moments.

I don't 'hate' it. I don't think it should have been released. I don't hate it anymore than i would hate any other material object released without being properly consutrcted. Getting past the bugs is the problem. Not only that but it has the most dated and lazy graphics i've seen in years. You can't argue that it's good in spite of those bugs because those bugs are the problem, and they should never have been there. How do you release a game that routes you to transatlantic servers all the time, making it unplayable? That's a hell of a mistake - and probably the fault of the publisher. Even without it's mistakes, it's worth no more than the average XBL arcade game, since that's really all it is. It's no more content than BF 1943 for instance. It'd be worth £20 at most, not £40.

To be honest, I do think that the online pass is a good idea. Here's why: 1) If a pre-owned game is sold the retailer gets all the money ,and developer gets little or no money at all. 2)It will give the developers more money to make more games if the pass is bought or a new copy is sold. 3) Finally, it will give the player more incentive to play the game if they bought the pass because they had to pay more for it.

1. Every new game that's sold the retailer gets all the money. Developers are paid for the development of the game, that's it. Publishers are paid for selling the print run to the shops (via the distributor). They have already made their money as well at this point, though sufficient demand my provoke another print run.
2. Developers don't get paid for the sale of a game.
3. That's just not true. Players are motivated to play on the merits of the game alone.

It's entirely fatuous for anyone to enter this debate on the assumption that there is a negative impact caused by the used market. There's no evidence to support or even suggest this.

Statistical correlations between declines in sales of premium boxed games and the rise of pre-owned are hard to come by, yes, but when one side supplies the goods, and the other then creates a separate commercial eco-system with those goods which generates no direct revenue for the producer but hogs the producer's shelf space, it's not an unrealistic connection to make, surely? I'm not trying to argue that EA's revenues would quadruple if second-hand were done away with tomorrow - there's only so much cash to go around - but retail's prioritising of pre-owned code has, I feel justified in asserting, bitten into the industry's share of the pie. Do you have any clear and unambiguous evidence to the contrary?

In any case, I sincerely doubt that the online pass system is an attempt to “kill off” the second-hand market, however rigorously David Braben and co may bang their drums. The big publishers may complain about being “cheated” of their “rightful” earnings, but I'm sure they'd rather people were playing their games than not - anything which brings more titles within the reach of more people is good for the sector as a whole. Added to that, being able to trade in games gives the consumer more cash to blow on new ones. What they're doing, rather, is readjusting the balance in favour of new purchases.

Regarding price drops - this is a persuasive line of thought and as I say, I'd like to give it further investigation, but one possibility that occurs to me is this: publishers drop the RRP, retail responds by dropping the price of pre-owned games, and everybody becomes embroiled in a race to the bottom from which only the supermarkets emerge unscathed.

Retailers don't at all. That just doesn't happen. They might have a buy 2 for £20 kind of deal. But that isn't pushing preowned products over new at all. 

I'll concede that “over and above” is putting it too strongly, but walk into a branch of GAME, HMV, GameStation (or check out their respective websites) and tell me pre-owned games aren't a prominent feature of the landscape

Regarding Homefront – have you played it lately? Kaos patched the game on Thursday. How does it hold up for you these days?

Yes, Retail outlets DO push preowned sales on you over new sales. In the US, places like Gamestop are notorious for doing it, but even here our Game and Gamestation do it all the time. I can't walk in there and try to buy a game new without them offering a preowned version instead. Apart from the fact that the preowned shelves take prominance in their stores, and the new copies get tucked away, the simple fact that they always offer you a preowned alternative is, by definition, pushing sales.

No one can genuinely sit there and say that preowned sales don't eat into the profits of developers (or the publishers if you want to to be finicky about it), it's a ludicrous argument with no merit. Simple, primary school economics explains it:
Q. If I have an item that I sell for 10 pounds, then give you 9 pounds of the profit, how much money do I have left?
A. 1 pound
Q. If I have an item that I sell for 6 pounds, and all the profit is mine, how much money do I have?
A. 6 pounds
Q. If the two items are exactly the same, which one do I want to sell first, the one that is more expensive and gives me LESS money, or the one that is cheaper to buy and gives me MORE money?
A. It's a no brainer, you sell the one that makes you more money.

OK, now, here's where things get tricky.

Q. But, what if by selling the more expensive item, it means you can then get another item to sell, and each time you sell it, you can get another, whereas if you sell the cheaper item, you get no more to sell. Which is then the better option for long term profitability?
A. Selling the more expensive item. You may make 6 pounds originally from the cheaper item, but it's the only money you'll get from it. Whereas you could make 1 pound every time and always have that item to sell.

OK, I'll grant you, that last example. it's not as cut and dry as that here, but it's not meant to be an accurate representation, it's a simple example of how the revenue stream works. Retailer sells preowned, they get all profit, developers/publishers/whoever don't get anything. By definition, that is cutting into their profits. To say otherwise is to be deliberately ignorant.

With regards to releasing games, like Homefront, that were unready for release for one reason or another, I can't see that as an argument against the online pass. It's a different argument altogether and the online pass would still be in play regardless.

Lowering prices is a truly insane idea. Fact still remains that every other industry increases profits to match increased production costs, whereas video games are exponentially more expensive to make and don't cost any more to buy. To then say that games are too expensive is straight up foolish. If the industry then decided to reduce the cost of a game, retailers would just respond by lowering the cost of prowned games. Preowned is still their bread and butter, the vast majority of their profit, lower prices for new games doesn't help them at all. The only people it helps is the consumer, and in reality, games aren't badly priced as it is.

However, I can see, what I believe to be a fair solution. Keep the online pass, but lower the price of new games that require them to compensate, then make EVERYONE who wants the online content buy the pass. Games could come with a 2 day free trial pass so people can test the online first. It keeps everyone on the same level and lets those who think they're being cheated (even when they're not) feel better about the situation.

I can't walk in there and try to buy a game new without them offering a preowned version instead. Apart from the fact that the preowned shelves take prominance in their stores, and the new copies get tucked away, the simple fact that they always offer you a preowned alternative is, by definition, pushing sales.

I don't think either of those things are true. I have NEVER been offered a used alternative ever. The only reason I can think that would happen is if the shop had a surplus of stock. THe shelves favour preowned because the shops have way more used stock than new - and used games have a short shelf life. It's not representative of anything.

No one can genuinely sit there and say that preowned sales don't eat into the profits of developers (or the publishers if you want to to be finicky about it), it's a ludicrous argument with no merit.

Because developers don't profit from the sales of product. It's not being finnicky it's being accurate.

Simple, primary school economics explains it:

Well no, because shops don't acquire used stock for free. It's not 100% profit since the sale has to offset the cost they paid for it, just the same as if the stock was new.

And more importantly, online passes have nothing to do with any of this.

Lowering prices is a truly insane idea. Fact still remains that every other industry increases profits to match increased production costs, whereas video games are exponentially more expensive to make and don't cost any more to buy.

exponentially more expensive than what?

Lots of things cost more to make than each individual instance of product costs, that's basic economics. If it cost you £150m to buy a ticket to Avatar in the cinema the film would never make any money. Like movies video game sales are dependent on numbers. Lower the price and you have the best chance of competing for the money of people considering buying your product used.

Again: who buys a used copy of the same game if they can get the new version at the same price? Noone.

I've no problem with a pass for using online features, but where I draw the line is content. Having been an offline gamer for the first five years of this generation I feel I've been missing out on content that others have had while paying the same amount of money. Of course the online pass idea is relatively new and the content I've been missing out on was mostly pre-order bonuses (bonuses that I downloaded to give my games a new lease of life when I finally got online) but the point stands as there are still many gamers out there who are stuck in areas with no way to get online, whether as a result of the cost or being in the wrong area.

If passes like these were only for online play (and limited to a console rather than a gamertag, of course) then I don't see how anyone could complain. The company is getting money from second hand games when they'd normally be treated as a lost sale that someone else is making money from (a theft as far as they're concerned and I can see why whenever I enter Gamestation in Leicester and see the single shelf section of new games surrounded by the pre-owned shelves), the people who are offline are getting what they paid for and not losing out on content they could use offline, the online gamers are getting what they want and only having to pay more if they didn't buy the game in a away that benefits the people who spent years of their lives making such things.

Nobody loses out that way, although there is still the question of games without an online component.

After reading the article I kind of agree with paying a little to play online with pre-owned games, BUT, is it really £10? Because that is ludicrously expensive. Also I guess the only way to pay this is via a credit card online? (something I am never comfortable with) or does it use MS points?

I have been told when buying a new game, "the pre-owned version is £5 cheaper" in Game and Gamestation. I prefer to buy new games, because condition is a gamble with pre-owned. Game/station don't even restock new games that are above a few months old, bar guaranteed sellers like GTA IV. The only way to get older games new is on Amazon. The publishers obviously need Game/station or else they would have cut them out altogether by now. If they didn't try to rip us off with Games on Demand, they might have.

And Grummy, there was no mention of Online Pass at all when I pre-ordered the Signature Edition of Dragon Age II; there was also no mention that the promo and bonus items were in an in-game location until after the game came out and everyone was asking "where are the items". The items were completely inaccessible from my offline profile so I was forced to choose between importing my save from Origins or the items. The use of Online Pass at all in DA II was excessive and an inconvenience that punished the very users that EA were trying to reward.

Dead Space 2 on the other hand, has Online Pass and I didn't care one bit since I have no interest in online multiplayer. In fact I may give my Online Pass code to someone who bought DS2 pre-owned just to spite EA for Dragon Age II.

I have been told when buying a new game, "the pre-owned version is £5 cheaper" in Game and Gamestation. I prefer to buy new games, because condition is a gamble with pre-owned. Game/station don't even restock new games that are above a few months old, bar guaranteed sellers like GTA IV. The only way to get older games new is on Amazon. The publishers obviously need Game/station or else they would have cut them out altogether by now. If they didn't try to rip us off with Games on Demand, they might have.

And Grummy, there was no mention of Online Pass at all when I pre-ordered the Signature Edition of Dragon Age II; there was also no mention that the promo and bonus items were in an in-game location until after the game came out and everyone was asking "where are the items". The items were completely inaccessible from my offline profile so I was forced to choose between importing my save from Origins or the items. The use of Online Pass at all in DA II was excessive and an inconvenience that punished the very users that EA were trying to reward.

Dead Space 2 on the other hand, has Online Pass and I didn't care one bit since I have no interest in online multiplayer. In fact I may give my Online Pass code to someone who bought DS2 pre-owned just to spite EA for Dragon Age II.

Well, that is wrong, as is the apparent plan to release MK without it. I still don't see it as a problem with the idea of the passes themselves, more that there is no industry rule preventing them from 'neglecting to mention it'. What gets me is that it wouldn't have made any difference if they HAD mentioned it.

I can't walk in there and try to buy a game new without them offering a preowned version instead. Apart from the fact that the preowned shelves take prominance in their stores, and the new copies get tucked away, the simple fact that they always offer you a preowned alternative is, by definition, pushing sales.

I don't think either of those things are true. I have NEVER been offered a used alternative ever. The only reason I can think that would happen is if the shop had a surplus of stock. THe shelves favour preowned because the shops have way more used stock than new - and used games have a short shelf life. It's not representative of anything.

No one can genuinely sit there and say that preowned sales don't eat into the profits of developers (or the publishers if you want to to be finicky about it), it's a ludicrous argument with no merit.

Because developers don't profit from the sales of product. It's not being finnicky it's being accurate.

Simple, primary school economics explains it:

Well no, because shops don't acquire used stock for free. It's not 100% profit since the sale has to offset the cost they paid for it, just the same as if the stock was new.

And more importantly, online passes have nothing to do with any of this.

Lowering prices is a truly insane idea. Fact still remains that every other industry increases profits to match increased production costs, whereas video games are exponentially more expensive to make and don't cost any more to buy.

exponentially more expensive than what?

Lots of things cost more to make than each individual instance of product costs, that's basic economics. If it cost you £150m to buy a ticket to Avatar in the cinema the film would never make any money. Like movies video game sales are dependent on numbers. Lower the price and you have the best chance of competing for the money of people considering buying your product used.

Again: who buys a used copy of the same game if they can get the new version at the same price? Noone.

So you're calling me a liar? It IS representative, because it DOES happen, if it hasn't happened to you then the staff aren't doing their jobs properly. It's part of their job to push 2nd hand games sales.

It IS Finicky because you are arguing semantics and the 'accuracy' doesn't change anything. That's exactly what Finicky is, being picky over irrelevant matters. You're only arguing it to try and score some points, to be able to say 'ha, I'm right, and you're wrong'. Also to note, developers DO profit from games sales, if the game doesn't sell, they don't get funds to create new games, and that isn't even including the fact that some developers publish their own games, and that you don't know the ins and outs of every publisher-developer agreement. You're assuming that all proceeds go to the publisher. Why? Because the publisher covers the cost of development? Perhaps in some cases, but not always, developers fund games from their own coffers, so there must be a revenue stream somewhere. Which, however way you want to argue it, is the key point, it's a revenue stream, whether it goes direct to developer, or filtered through publishers first, no sales, no profit, no games. It's a simple chain.

You make a reasonable point that shops don't acquire stock for free, but the economics are still wildly different. Instead of a 5 pound cut from every new game(that's a figure once quoted on here by a member who managed a Game store, though for the life of me I can't remember who it was) they get full value of preowned sales, adjusted for whatever they gave to obtain the game. Even with new release games, the economics are better as they tend to make around a 10 pound profit instead of the 5 they get for a new version. This figure is also scalable depending on how they make the sale, if they take trade in, the games they take, when priced individually for resale could be worth far more than the cash cost of selling the game. the 2nd hand market is big money that developers and publishers never see. You cannot argue against that because it is simple economic fact.

Ecponentially more expensive than previous. As in 10-15 years ago a game would cost around 1-2 million to make (I remember reading an article on here once that put the cost of making Tomb Raider at about 2 million) and would still cost 40 pounds per copy to buy. Now they cost tens of millions (again, Pete Hines told the official Elder Scrolls forums that Oblivion cost 40 million dollars to make) and still cost 40 pounds to buy.

I'm assuming your sentence starting 'Lots of things cost more.....' means 'lots of things cost more to make on the whole than they do to buy individually', I have to assume this because your sentence was grammatically weak to say the least.

For the rest of it, your arguing a common, but flawed argument, that it's better to take smaller sums from more people than the other way around. Well, it's a reasonable argument, but there has to be a balance, too low, and no matter the number of sales, you don't profit, too high, and consumers won't buy your product. But this doesn't take into consideration inflation, and increased costs to produce. Sure, cinema tickets are cheap, BUT to go hand in hand with increased costs of film production, the cost of a ticket has increased. The Film industry also has further revenue streams through DVD sales, soundtrack sales, promotional material like posters and clothes, income from TV broadcasting. Film has more costs, has increased price to match, and has a much greater revenue stream than gaming. The point STILL remains one you can't, and as yet nobody has, argue against, that games cost far far more to make than they used to, but don't cost any more to buy.

And you're right, no one would buy a used copy of a game if they can get a new one at the same price. but you're assuming that the 2nd hand market would just die because the industry as a whole dropped the price of new games? Retailers would just drop the cost of 2nd hand stock further. Do you think they should keep competing until games cost a couple of pound each, then retailers go out of business?

After reading the article I kind of agree with paying a little to play online with pre-owned games, BUT, is it really £10? Because that is ludicrously expensive. Also I guess the only way to pay this is via a credit card online? (something I am never comfortable with) or does it use MS points?

Most of these passes are 800points on XBL which is why they are not intended to curtail the secondary market, only exploit it. Of course when the game becomes cheap enough second hand (which is more likley to happen sooner if it requries a code) then you can pay for the code and still pay less than a new version.

Greed, Greed, Greed, Greed.

They sell a game for £40. Thats the money they get for it. End Of.

Now, they get the portion of the £40, (as before) which will make them profits of course. Then, when the game is pre-owned out, theres now a good chance that they will get an additional £10. Otherwise the consumer is left with half a game.

But you won't see the highstreet retailer bringing their prices down on pre-owned games, as they are now worth less. Make no mistake, the big game here is too cut the middle-man out directly, or at the very least those on the highstreet - and doing so getting rid of pre-owned games entirely. But again, when they achieve this, prices won't go down, games quality won't improve, but profits, wages and bonuses will.

Given the numbers of developers and publishers that fold or get bought out due to financial difficulties, I struggle to accept the 'greed' argument - it's probably more like necessity for most of them.

The cost of releasing a top rated game is increasing - even on the same platform we demand ever improving visuals, sound, plotting and acting. There is a price barrier to increasing the original sale price, so they have to make more income from the game as a whole.

There are a couple of methods - sell more of the same, which leads to endless sequels that are barely expansion packs, but cost far less, or sell add-ons, from DLC to online passes, etc. Of course, the accountants will insist on estimates on new income from these before the game is even half way deveoped, so the developers may HAVE to hold back content, so they have something they feel will sell and generate the income needed.

Games development and publishing is highly competitive - it's relatively easy to set up a studio (slightly harder with a publisher) so market forces will dictate the amount they can change for a game. For games of a similar quality , the lower priced one will sell more, but they have to calculate which will bring more income.

But the same will happen on the second hand market. As critical features come at and extra £5 or £6, the second hand value of the game SHOULD drop by the same amount. It just redistributes some of that second hand sale price from the shop to the publisher, and developer. Market forces should allow the new and second hand markets to get to a new equilibrium, as long as everyone is aware of the extra costs.

So, the only action that needs to be taken is that games shops and packaging designers have to ensure any likely extra costs for full functionality are made clear to buyers of both new and used games.

They do need to provide a activation method for off-line boxes though - no idea how this could be securely achieved!

1. Every new game that's sold the retailer gets all the money.

Thanks wishface, with that one ridiculous statement I can now safely ignore all the rest of your comments.

LINK: "Anatomy of a $60 video game"

..and apparently that chart is exceedingly generous - if you read the comments below the graph, actual shop employees are claiming it's closer to $5-$8 per sale:

"I do orders for a retail store. The one I work for only makes about $5 on new games. Most big title games cost around $51-54. A lot of people pay with credit cards and those have a 8% fee with usage. So, wow!!! There is no money for the retailers in New Games."

"From working in the industry for over 10 year now...At best, a retailer makes $12 a unit on a new release $60 game. By the time you add in shipping and labor you are looking at about $8 margin, assuming you sell the unit."

Oppps. I'm a bit late to this discussion.

But in four easy paragraphs, I can say all I need to. The industry got as rich as it did without the online pass, and as far as I know it's not attempting to do this to the PC market. It's purely greed. Plain and simple. They make a ton of money (not to mention waste a ton too with cancelled games), and want to make more. They know they have a captive market and they know they can get away with it.

The industry blamed piracy for loss of profit, then they moved onto the secondhand market. I wonder what excuse they'll use next? The increased cost of electricity bills for a price hike! The increased cost of driving to work! And I thought they were offsetting any increase in development costs by reducing the size of games.

What absolutely amazes me is that the industry generally runs this one-price-fits-all. I don't think anyone would complain if online purchased games (no secondhand option further down the line, no box, manual, disc) were a much fairer price, aka, much cheaper. Equally, bigger games, better produced and undoubtably more expensive to produce should be more expensive than cheaper to produce games. A yearly updated sports games has to be cheap to make compared to an RPG that's taken three years. If the industry desperately needs more money, perhaps all developers should make FPS and release rip-off priced map packs twice a month!

I buy mainly secondhand games now because of the attitude of the industry. I buy far fewer too because the industry is pumping out too many clones with the same problems they've always had, and only care to really work on graphics over all other content, generally. I got rid of my 360 partly because Microsoft have led the way and spawned this greedy attitude that has infested the games industry. To my knowledge it wasn't like this before Microsoft entered the industry.

As others have mentioned we officially pay £40 a year for Xbox live when I would imagine people feel should give them free access to the online / multiplayer part of a game.

Charging for a online pass is basically double dipping, something that should be part of the game, whether bought on release, discounted new after the game has been out a month or second hand off ebay, by rental or pre-owned from Game.

We're in the middle of a massive recession, everyone is feeling the pinch and I would imagine many gamers are cutting back on the number of games they buy.

I know where the publishers are coming from but they are in danger of killing the golden goose.

I think the online pass is a good idea as the industry lose so much money on second hand games that in the long run it will affect the whole industry and they could use the money to make better games as the goverment cant seem to understand helping gaming will benifit them in the long run. Why complain if u dont get second hand games. If u want to play a game second hand then just pay 800mps it wont hurt and u will get a better experience as they will have fixed most of the bugs

After much thought on this issue, I've come to these conclusions:

The issue of whether pre-owned sales affect profits is highly debatable. On the one hand, publishers have no right to profit a second time from a product they've already sold once. On the other hand, games, and computer software in general, are not a purely physical product like my car example. What you buy is a limited license to use that software and, while EULAs are a legal grey area, when the physical product is sold on, the buyer is not necessarily entitled to the same rights as the original purchaser.

Games have cost £40 new for about ten years now. The cost of game production has risen considerably in that time. It stands to reason, then, that the profit margin is smaller for a single sale than it used to be. The gaming audience, however, has never been higher than now with legions of "casual" gamers introduced in this generation. It would take an accountant with access to very specific information to tell whether this all evens out or not. The behaviour of certain publishers; closing developer studios, cancelling titles close to release, and abandoning franchises etc., suggests that failures are a lot more costly, and therefore less forgiveable, these days.

It seems that Online Pass is here to stay. I think there needs to be an industry-wide concensus on how Online Pass is implemented. There needs to be full disclosure in advance which games are using it, and how it is being used. EA's implementation is becoming more restrictive with each game they release. If the restrictions were the same as Xbox Live, ie. locked to the console, rather than to a single Gamertag on that console, then I would grudgingly accept that it isn't a bad thing. It's like DRM; when it works, you don't notice it, and when it locks genuine users out of what they've paid for, like my experience with Dragon Age II, there needs to be a rethink.

Everyone who can see through the scam and sees it as a money grabbing scheme sounds bang on. Some loosing their cool on here for no reason other than a differing opinion.

This is the first I've heard about this Online Pass. I don't know if I am to be worried about it,I only ever play multiplayer online on the bigger games like Halo and CoD,so not sure if I'll be affected?

It's been excuse after excuse, it's about time publishers take the responsiblity onto themselves that the games that fail to sell are simply not good enough. I mean look at the big company's that are pushing for the Online Pass. Names of companys who own titles that have recently been featured in the worst selling games lists.. It's a no brainer.

I love buying new games, sadly I cannot afford to buy just any game which is the attitude of most money conscious people out there.

If a game is worth is salt, it will do well. That is the bottom line.

I don't think I've ever been in Game/station WITHOUT having someone offer me the preowned version of a game, not to mention the simple way they layout the stores draws you into pre-owned but you often have to hunt around for new games.

For anyone who doubts that new games cost £40million+ to make I suggest you check out the accounts of someone like EA. I have (but I get a kick out of stuff like that) and they normally have a nice breakdown of how much a game costs to make. Trust me £40m is pretty low for a AAA title, although obviously the shovelware costs a lot less.

And for anyone complaining about the cost of online pass: Can't you do maths? No one is asking you to buy a the online pass with a new game, just the preowned. If the cost of preowned plus the online pass is less then the new copy buy that, otherwise buy new.

Please, for the love of the Elder Gods, don't ship mortal Kombat without an online code!!!

If someone says they think the pass is overpriced, I can respect that.
If someone says they think it's poorly handled, I can get behind that point of view.
If someone says they think it needs better, industry wide regulation, I agree wholeheartedly.

But when people claim it's all about greed and have no real argument against the facts supporting the pass, I can't understand it and I can't give it any credence. If you say you accept the necessity but think the price is wrong, that at least I can respect.
Now I grant, earning Grummy's respect is not exactly high on anyones agenda, but I'm a vocal representation of the people who are in support, and we have facts, as have been demonstrated in this discussion, to back us up. My respect my not mean anything, but if you have an argument then you need to be able to back it up with more than just an 'I'm right, you're wrong' level of argument.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you you are wrong if you think this is a bad thing, but I DO ask that you come with something to back you up so I can either fight against it, or, hopefully, be enlightened by a persepctive I hadn't considered yet.

Edwin, I think it's time to reel out the counter argumetn to this that you promised us.

Give it another couple of years and boxed DVDs will be a thing of the past. Once one company has gone "download only" for its big games, the rest will follow and this will seem a quaint old fashioned argument.

Grummy,I'll put something past you and you can tell me your opinion.

What if preowned games never existed? Imagine no one thought it was a good idea to sell your games second hand.

Games would be released, bought new, they'd get reviewed, rated, the usual procedure. Within a few weeks the fate of that game would be sealed. The publishers would have whatever they made from the game and that would be it. No more money.

If it was a popular game, people would go out and buy the future releases of it as they know what to expect. For example, COD series. People were still buying MW2 new for months after its release. Christmas, birthdays or whatever, everyone wanted it.

If a game sucks, not many people will be running out to buy the sequels, or maybe even future releases.

Now, back to reality. Someone just had a crazy idea to sell games preowned. This allows more people who didnt want to fork out the big bucks to give a game a go. If they like it they will play more, and hopefully the publisher will have caught on that DLC is a gold mine with preowned and will now have a new source of revenue from a game that was thought to be dead. Preowned resurrects games, or allows games to keep on living, similar to DLC.
Preowned games from retail stores may be a rip off and a scam, hence why I avoid these at all costs. Getting games online 2nd hand is much fairer, you buy a game at a stated price, and the site takes a small cut for the service it provides. I personally rely heavily on preowned games as I simply do not have the money to fork out the big bucks for a game unless I feel I need it more than food lol, but if I connect well with a game I have purchased preowned, I am more than happy to pay for DLC on marketplace to further the game.

My point may spawn the question, "If people are willing to pay for DLC, why can't they pay the same for Online Pass?"
I am still unsure as to what this online pass does and what is restricted without it. But I personally think it is ludicrous to have someone buy a code just to play a preowned game on say Campaign or even Multiplayer. At least with DLC you get an addition to the game.

I do however see where the publishers or whoever are coming from. They are freaking over loss of revenue,something we would all worry about if we were in their shoes. But I believe it is simply due to lack of interest in their games. The standard of games is so high now that to be the best out there you really have to stand out and raise the bar.

I look forward to your feedback on my opinion.

Grummy,I'll put something past you and you can tell me your opinion.

What if preowned games never existed? Imagine no one thought it was a good idea to sell your games second hand.

Games would be released, bought new, they'd get reviewed, rated, the usual procedure. Within a few weeks the fate of that game would be sealed. The publishers would have whatever they made from the game and that would be it. No more money.

If it was a popular game, people would go out and buy the future releases of it as they know what to expect. For example, COD series. People were still buying MW2 new for months after its release. Christmas, birthdays or whatever, everyone wanted it.

If a game sucks, not many people will be running out to buy the sequels, or maybe even future releases.

Now, back to reality. Someone just had a crazy idea to sell games preowned. This allows more people who didnt want to fork out the big bucks to give a game a go. If they like it they will play more, and hopefully the publisher will have caught on that DLC is a gold mine with preowned and will now have a new source of revenue from a game that was thought to be dead. Preowned resurrects games, or allows games to keep on living, similar to DLC.
Preowned games from retail stores may be a rip off and a scam, hence why I avoid these at all costs. Getting games online 2nd hand is much fairer, you buy a game at a stated price, and the site takes a small cut for the service it provides. I personally rely heavily on preowned games as I simply do not have the money to fork out the big bucks for a game unless I feel I need it more than food lol, but if I connect well with a game I have purchased preowned, I am more than happy to pay for DLC on marketplace to further the game.

My point may spawn the question, "If people are willing to pay for DLC, why can't they pay the same for Online Pass?"
I am still unsure as to what this online pass does and what is restricted without it. But I personally think it is ludicrous to have someone buy a code just to play a preowned game on say Campaign or even Multiplayer. At least with DLC you get an addition to the game.

I do however see where the publishers or whoever are coming from. They are freaking over loss of revenue,something we would all worry about if we were in their shoes. But I believe it is simply due to lack of interest in their games. The standard of games is so high now that to be the best out there you really have to stand out and raise the bar.

I look forward to your feedback on my opinion.

How is that any different to how things are already? Game is released, it gets reviewed, it gets bought or not, end of. The only people who see profit from 2nd hand sales are the retailers. There is no difference.

I am assuming that you are suggesting that 2nd hand sales boosts future profits, but that's a questionable suggestion. There are just as many people who ould try a game, hate it and never buy another in that franchise as there are people who could buy it, love it, then buy it new. There is also the possibility they could buy it, like it, but decide they don't need the franchise desperately and are willing to wait to find it 2nd hand. Again, the publishers/developers don't earn.

If you are referring to DLC, well, DLC is a new phenomenon in gaming, especially in console gaming, The industry has lived without it, and it doesn't thrive based on 2nd hand sales. Sure there is an argument that if someone hadn't bought the game 2nd hand, they wouldn't then buy the DLC, but are the economics of that so significant as to make a real difference? I'm not convinced of that at all.

In this era of technology, people would have other options open to them to try games (if your world of non 2ndhame gaming existed) developers would compensate, releasing much larger demos perhaps, giving people free trials for certain services, things like that. The industry would still thrive, we'd still get the games we're playing, and, yes, more of the money would go to the developers and publishers.

Edwin, I think it's time to reel out the counter argumetn to this that you promised us.

It'll be here this week, can't say exactly when though.

I've been enjoying the debate on here. Good thoughts from both sides of the line...

Most of these passes are 800points on XBL which is why they are not intended to curtail the secondary market, only exploit it. Of course when the game becomes cheap enough second hand (which is more likley to happen sooner if it requries a code) then you can pay for the code and still pay less than a new version.

Of course, once it's cheap enough, EA have closed the servers...

I think they are a good idea,but take games that have been out ages and are usually easier to get second hand.Then you get home and find out none of the codes work.But then new games are usually available for nowhere near full price not many months after release nowdays.Agreeing with the earlier post about secondhand cars,you don't buy a secondhand car and expect to pay extra for the log book.All the talk nowdays about BE GREEN and recycle everything possible what is the secondhand games market but recycling.I think they ought to allow more than one person to use a code for certain things,they already know that if you are really into a game they will make up for this with the extra content that you are going to purchase.In every gaming magazine i have ever read the gaming market is compared to the film market with the costs to make and hiring actors for voice talent.But a brand new film doesn't cost fourty or fifty quid and i don't get home with a film even second hand and expect to have to pay more to watch it.