[DEBATE] SHOULD WE BE CHARGE FOR IN-GAME FEATURE(S) BECAUSE WE BUY USED?

[Rock. Paper. Shotgun.]

Today, I was in my local gaming store. I overheard a young lad asking the shop assistant for a copy of Battlefield 3 for Microsoft's Xbox 360. He was asked if he would like a new copy of the game or a secondhand one; the secondhand copy was £10 cheaper than the original. Obviously he opted for the cheaper option... he was told that he would have to purchase an online passcode in order to play via Xbox Live. He grumbled about this as he made his purchase.​

I've always thought games developers are well within their rights to try and make money from secondhand games, considering how much work goes into developing modern games. I think this is especially important in the current economic climate. However as I was driving home I passed a number of car sales garages.

I'm pretty sure second-hand cars have been sold for many years. I don't think that purchasers of these used vehicles, myself included, have had to pay the original manufacturers any money to have the engine start, the wheels to turn or for it to be driven out of the county. You can also buy many other secondhand goods with no contribution to whoever made them in the first place.

This led me to the question: should the gaming industry be allowed to charge for features in the original product just because you choose to buy used? What makes the gaming industry different from others?
​

First off, developers have to pay for servers to run online games, which costs money. Three or four people could potentially play the same copy of Battlefield 3 (for example) online, but without the online pass system DICE would only get the cash from one of them.

Once you drive away in a second-hand car, it doesn't cost the original manufacturer a penny. In fact, they'll still make money from you when you buy new parts for your second-hand car. We're not totally behind the 'Online Passcode' system, but can see the sense behind it if the game in question justifies the expense.​

XBW hit the nail on the head, there's a strong argument to be made for having to charge so sustain servers for multiplayer games. The problem arises when single-player games start using online passes, but so far we can't think up any examples of significant content being locked away behind online passes, it's all bonus DLC. So we're alright with it for now...​

---

Article published by: Ross
Information gathered from: Source

 

[Simple]

I think the people who buy it used should pay for the online pass because they are getting it for like $40 cheaper.

 

[JustHayden]

I heard about gaming companies doing this about a year before it actually happened, and I thought they wouldn't even attempt it. But the reason why they started to do this is because they are not making enough profit from just the game itself. Many times I've heard about gaming companies going bankrupt because they don't make enough profit off a game, and start selling their rights and such to their video games. I myself am trying to hop into the video game industry, and really would like to have my own game studio one day. I completely understand the game companies view on the matter, and I 100% support it.

The first time I got one of these games, I didn't know it already came with the online "Kombat pass". So I spent 600-800 msp (can't remember) on the online pass and realized the mistake I made afterward. I face palmed myself and just gave the code away on another forum.

 

[Ghostrider]

If it's legal then there can be no real complaints. If it's a fair deal then that's a different matter. I cannot give a reasonable answer because I do not know the economics of the game industry and the costs involved in developing a game but I do understand the need to make profit.

So, the final decision is in the hands of the purchaser. Ross says he heard the kid grumbling while making the purchase yet he still paid up. The kid didn't have to purchase.

Ghostrider.....