Topic: Nintendo may charge for online?

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

There's nothing premium about Nintendo products and services.

[Ian Sane]

  Everyone hates Friend Codes. Maybe Nintendo could use lack of friend codes as an incentive to use their premium online service. Let's say you have the basic free online service that costs nothing, but uses Friend codes (much like now), but then ontop of that Nintendo also offered a premium gold online service thing that you had to pay for, but the huge draw for that is no friend codes. 

So more or less Nintendo makes their free service suck on purpose so that people will pay for the better model that should be been in place on the Wii for free to begin with?  Yeah, if that isn't illegal it should be. 

[Adrock]

Highly doubt that's the case. Nintendo didn't make a free service suck on purpose. They unintentionally made a free service that sucked. Period.

I don't think Friend Codes have anything to do with the service being free. Nintendo has to maintain the servers on their own dime regardless, just like Sony does with PSN. It's possible to ditch Friend Codes and have an online system that wasn't so unaccommodating and/or useless.  Friend Codes are just a security feature and not because they're high tech or anything, but because they're annoying as f*ck. What pedophile has the patience to deal with Friend Codes? In that way, Friend Codes work.

[Halbred]

Not directly Nintendo-related (yet), but this may be a sign of things to come:
 
http://kotaku.com/5535577/eas-fight-against-used-game-sales-passes-to-tiger-woods
 
People may poo-poo this decision, but I say whatever gets Gamestop closer to going belly-up, I'm in favor of.

[ThePerm]

i never sell my games and rarely buy used. I am the type of gamer EA wishes they had. Unfortunately, I prefer single player games, and i'm not a sports fan.

[TJ Spyke]

Hal, why would ANYBODY be in favor of getting rid of the used game market? Would you want it that you could ONLY sell your car back to Ford/Toyota/GM, etc.? No, you would want to be able to sell it to any car dealership. While some GameStop employees are a-holes, in general thy are pretty good. This moronic decision by EA will only hurt them, I could possibly see it even helping sales of the Wii version (which will have online play and NOT require this stupid form of DRM).

That reminds me, why are those idiots suing GameStop? They should be suing Electronic Arts because it's EA that is making owners of used copies have to pay for online content.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I think EA runs their own servers and the purchase of NEW games supports the cost of those servers.

If a lot of people just wait for the used copy, then the cost of the servers used for the online portion of the game is not being supported. 

[Ian Sane]

People may poo-poo this decision, but I say whatever gets Gamestop closer to going belly-up, I'm in favor of.

You know Gamestop isn't the only store that sells used games.  Are they so offensive that fucking over every gamer's consumer rights is worth it to see them fail?
 
I figure EA's plan will fail anyway.  Gaming culture is full of hacker geeks that work around this stuff.  All attempts to curb piracy fail, so this will fail.
 
This is even worse than DRM.  DRM attempts to screw over pirates and instead screws over honest customers.  But this specifically targets honest customers.  It is illegal to steal videogames so I understand the incentive to try to prevent it.  But no one buying a used videogame is breaking the law and I don't even think any common moral or ethic code would consider buying used videogames to be wrong.  This is just giving their customers the finger.

[BlackNMild2k1]

No. this is just giving used game shop the finger since the Original Dev/Pub don't see a dime of the money even though the used game player would continue to use their servers to play the game online.

Seems pretty fair to me.

I don't want a continual drain on my resources from someone that hasn't paid to use them. Stores like GS get all the used sales money(and rip the 2nd hand customers off in the process with the prices they charge) yet I'm supposed to allow these "freeloaders" access to my network when they didn't pay for the right to use it like every other 1st hand customer currently on the service?

Maybe GS should put up their own 2nd hand servers for 2nd hand buyers so that the money charged from 2nd hand games can support these online servers for the 2nd hand gamers. Online servers aren't free, so I don't see why everyone has this sense of entitlement to things they didn't create, earn or pay for.

You want to bitch to someone, bitch to the 2nd shops for not giving the dev/pub a slice of the used pie when the used buyer is still trying to use online servers.

Maybe they should work out a system where Used game shops fork over a piece of the used sale for online enabled games and that will generate them a code to use their used game on the game's servers. Or used game players can pay separately for access to the online servers and then the Dev/Pub gets the reimbursement they need for keeping the servers up and running.

If stores like GS don't want to help the cause, and the 2nd hand buyer wants to get their game online, then maybe they should just spend the extra $5 and buy the game new.

[Ian Sane]

You want to bitch to someone, bitch to the 2nd shops for not giving the dev/pub a slice of the used pie when the used buyer is still trying to use online servers.

I don't see any difference between a used game store and a fuckin' garage sale.  If they got into this whole slice of the user pie bullshit they would also go after Joe Blow, selling his used game on eBay.  The ability to sell something you already bought to someone else is a good right to have.  They step in here on videogames and it'll have the potential to spread to everything.  Next thing I know I can't sell my car without Toyota hitting me up for their share.  We don't deserve to have our rights squashed because Gamestop are dicks.
 
If EA hates Gamestop so much maybe they should stop having a business relationship with them.  Sure, they can't stop used sales but Gamestop gets in NEW EA games and takes pre-orders for them and the whole bit.  If the game industry hates Gamestop so much they can cut Gamestop out and then Gamestop has NO new games whatsoever, no new sytems or accessories or even official strategy guides and is basically a glorified flea market.
 
They don't do that because they want to use Gamestop's BS to pressure authorities to outlaw used game sales so they can get that cut they want but are not entitled to.  They make so many copies of a game so they only deserve one purchase per physical copy.  Besides there are no used sales for downloadable titles so if the future moves towards that they're fine.
 
The irony is also that if people want to continue to play your game they won't trade it in and online play is a good way to keep people playing.  The feature itself discourages used sales.  It's the I-beat-this-in-three-days games that get traded in right away.

[Chozo Ghost]

Nintendo didn't intentionally sabotage their online service. You have to give them some slack because first off its their first online effort, and naturally it won't be the best for that reason. Secondly, everyone hates friend codes, but Nintendo had at least good intentions for using that in order to ensure a more family friendly online environment, free of pedophiles of course, but also an environment free of racial slurs and swearing. Anyone who has ever used PSN or Live knows how bad and how prevalent that sort of foul language is.

I think it would be a good compromise if Nintendo required friend codes for games rated E, but didn't require them for games rated M (and possibly T). Children shouldn't be playing M rated games anyway, so there is no need to try to shield them from online content.

[Ian Sane]

Nintendo didn't intentionally sabotage their online service. You have to give them some slack because first off its their first online effort, and naturally it won't be the best for that reason.

I know they didn't.  But it would be really shitty for them to fix it and then charge for it.  Pay extra for something that is merely competent?  That's crap!
 
I however give them ZERO slack for it being their first online effort because it shouldn't be their first online effort.  Everyone else started this stuff last gen and, what a surprise, they're doing a better job than Nintendo is.  Nintendo CHOSE to have a lack of experience.  I thought that was a dumb decision at the time because I figured THIS EXACT SITUATION would occur and I was right, so **** 'em.  Besides Nintendo should be aware of what other companies have done with online gaming and learn from that.  Again, they CHOOSE to have tunnel vision and do everything their own way from scratch and if that blows up in their face it's their own fault.

[BlackNMild2k1]

The irony is also that if people want to continue to play your game they won't trade it in and online play is a good way to keep people playing.  The feature itself discourages used sales.  It's the I-beat-this-in-three-days games that get traded in right away.

If the online wasn't enough to keep the game for then the 2nd hand buyer probably won't use it either. Which means who cares if there is no online code/access.

I'm saying that game servers cost money and people that buy the game new supports those servers. It's built into the cost of the game to keep those servers up and running. When Used game shops sell games that focus heavily on online play, the server is seeing users that didn't pay in for the right to use the server. That's not fair to the dev/pub regardless of who they are.

The only way your car example would fit is if there was a Car sale with a $1000 rebate on all (let's say) Toyota's and some guy just bought a Toyota on Craig's list  and is now complaining that he doesn't get the $1000 rebate. If you wanted the rebate, then you should have bought the car from the dealer, not a private 2nd hand seller.

if 2nd hand gamers want to access the online portion of games, then they should either purchase the game new or buy an online code. Servers are not free, and dev/pubs like EA should have to bear the cost of the servers for people that didn't even help to support them in the first place.

And I'm not suggesting that all used game sales should give a portion back to the dev/pub, just the ones that require continued support and cost to the dev/pub, such as titles that use online and have dedicated servers to provide it.

Gamestop for example will Sell a new game for $50, buy back the same game a week later for $25 and then resell it 20 minutes later for $45. So I don't feel any sympathy for a company such as EA decreasing the value of a used sale purchase over the purchase of a New copy of the game, especially when companies like GS will purposely order low amounts of copies to they can push all their used/open copies out the door to unsuspecting customers that think they're getting a deal.

[vudu]

This is even worse than DRM.  DRM attempts to screw over pirates and instead screws over honest customers.  But this specifically targets honest customers.  ...  This is just giving their customers the finger.

If you buy a used game you're not EA's customer.  You're only EA's customer if you buy the game new, in which case this wouldn't hurt you at all.

[BlackNMild2k1]

After reading on this a little more, I do have one concern about this online code thing.

If you buy the game, activate your one time code, and now your friend/brother/sister/whoever wants to play with you, will they be able to access all the stuff the code unlocks while it's being used on the unlocked system, or does it only unlock for one account and every other player needs their own unlock code to join in on all the online features?

I'm all for 2nd hand buyers paying their own way, but if I legitimately bought a New copy and wanted to play 4 player online with my family on the same system using the same TV, or my brother/sister/dad wanted to start their own game, I shouldn't have to shell out an additional $30 to cover them all on online access for the game. That is not acceptable.

So I hope they unlock a system and not just a single user account.

edit: looks like that's already been taken care of

Do I need an unique Online Pass for every user on my console?
 No.  One Online Pass will give online access to multiple users logged  into the console where the Online Pass was first activated (subject to  the console manufacturer’s and EA online terms of service).
 
 Also, the user that activated the Online Pass will be allowed to access  online features on other consoles (of the same manufacturer) by logging  into the same account credentials that they used when they enabled the  Online Pass.

p.s. I also wonder what they are gonna do for rental places.
$3 added to rental price for 5 day online pass?

wonder how this affects Gamefly and the already sinking Blockbuster if it takes off.

edit2: I guess this question has been answered too.

Do I need to purchase an Online Pass when I rent a game?
Each Xbox LIVE gamertag or Sony PSN ID is entitled   to a free 7 day trial per title.  Beyond that, users will be required   to redeem or purchase Online Pass access.

[Guitar Smasher]

I don't understand the hate for online services in used games.  If I buy a game - new- and later sell it to someone else, including the 'license' to play online, then what's the problem?  Sure the 2nd buyer is not compensating the publisher, but the cost of the online 'license' was covered in my original purchase.

If you're arguing that the cost of the original purchase only 'pays' for the online component for an undefined limited time, and that the publisher is not prepared to offer the service through the usage of multiple owners, then that is a flaw inherent with the structure of online games.  Don't devalue the product for the consumer, just because your business model is faulty.

Oh, and while I don't have the opportunity to shop at a Gamestop, from what I've heard I'd never shop there anyhow.  So don't think I'm taking sides with them.  I'm just defending the consumer.

[KDR_11k]

"Just x$ a year to remove the stupid system we put in place that you all hate and think we shouldn't have invented in first place" isn't a good sales pitch.

[Ian Sane]

I don't understand the hate for online services in used games.  If I buy a game - new- and later sell it to someone else, including the 'license' to play online, then what's the problem?  Sure the 2nd buyer is not compensating the publisher, but the cost of the online 'license' was covered in my original purchase.

That's a great point.  Let's say I buy their game and play it online for two years.  Meanwhile Bob buys a different copy and plays it online for 1 year, sells it, and Jim buys it and plays it online for another year.  Two copies of the game, two accounts that played the game for two years.  What difference in there in the cost to EA between me and this group of two people that played the same game for the same amount of time as me?  There isn't and this is the whole flaw with the reasoning.  Even without online stuff if I sell my game I CAN'T PLAY IT ANYMORE.  So it isn't like anyone is getting something for free.  You make one copy of the game and you make your money back on that one copy of the game.  Whether one person plays it or 10 should make no difference.  To me this is like if I bought season tickets to a sports team, couldn't make it to all the games, and sold them to someone else I knew who could make it.  That one seat at the arena has been sold and it should make no difference who the hell sits in it.
 
This whole thing comes about entirely out of greed.  These companies want more money and they look at a used purchase as a potential source of revenue if they could outlaw it and force a new purchase or get a piece of the action.  That's all it is.  When it comes to IP companies get mad about the idea of people showing a DVD at a party and everyone getting to watch it for free.  They get mad about a bar playing music because all these people hear it for free.  They don't even like the idea of us owning the copy we buy.  They talk about us buying "licences" because they don't like the idea of someone taking good care of something and making use of it for a long time.  They want that repurchase or that fee to keep using it.  My dad used to make tapes of tapes he bought to use in the car because he was afraid the car stereo would chew it up.  They used to freak about stuff like that because if they could prevent that from happening he would have to buy a second copy instead or replace his original that got chewed up.
 
If the videogame industry could legally get away with deactivating every game you buy each year and force you to buy it again to reactivate it, they would.  This isn't piracy where someone is stealing from them.  They just don't like the idea of anyone getting a break in a situation where they could potentially get money from them.  All it is is trying to generate revenue out of every source possible.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Playing on THEIR online servers is like getting a Season Pass at the local Amusement Park.

You Paid for it and it is for your use and your use only.

You can't got to the park twice, decide you had enough and then sell your pass to the next the next person. It just doesn't work that way since that person didn't pay the park to continually use the parks equipment for their own enjoyment. If they want unfettered access to the activities inside, then they have to purchase their own pass.

[Ian Sane]

Playing on THEIR online servers is like getting a Season Pass at the local Amusement Park.

You Paid for it and it is for your use and your use only.

You can't got to the park twice, decide you had enough and then sell your pass to the next the next person.

Why the hell not?!  Cuz they said I can't?  If I'm not riding those rides then the amusement park isn't paying for any extra ride maintenance.  The amount of people in the park is the same so it doesn't affect how many staff members they have working to handle it.  I'm not using their bathrooms.  They're not cleaning up my trash.  The financial cost of handling those two customers sharing a pass is the same as if I alone just did it by myself.
 
I just see this as a kneejerk "nuh uh, that's not fair" reaction from the companies involved.  One person's season of using the amusement park has been paid for.  Someone will be riding those rides.  You're not out of any money because no one is entering the park for free.  If the park owner didn't know they wouldn't care.  They would just assume it was the same guy going to the park the whole time.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Bnm:
Stuff

But... transfer of ownership and related priviledges due to being the sole possessor of the "pass"... you've forfeited those benefits.  One "pass" for one active user.

I can sell you a WoW account, etc etc.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I can see both sides of the argument, but it's not like they are taking the game away and saying you can't play it anymore. They are just saying that if you want to join in the online portions of the game, using our servers, then you have to pay the toll to cross the bridge.

Times are tough, game cost are rising, used game sales are hurting the bottom line.
Companies have to find new ways to make revenue to keep paying those ever increasing salaries for seasoned and educated employees and this is one way to do it. You don't want to pay for the online portion? fine, don't pay it, don't play it and wait till you can buy it used.
No one is forcing online extras on you.

But if you want to play using whatever the online extras are for that game, then your new purchase or purchase of an online code, gives you (and anyone on your machine) full access to those areas so long as they exist.

We wouldn't have to worry about this at all if GS had just gave a little back for used games sales, so why don't we all just blame this on them.... even though they seem to be fine with this whole EA online pass thing.

[UltimatePartyBear]

I'm with BnM on this one (except for the part about GS paying EA back).  There's a difference between goods and services, and while the transfer of ownership of goods is well established by case law, the transfer of access rights to services is not.  It's almost always subject to a separate agreement, such as Terms of Service.

The problem EA and other game publishers have is that they can't find a way to add value for new game purchases without at least appearing to be holding out on us.  We gamers are a petulant bunch.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Yeah, there's still the problem that EA simply wasn't providing a product with prime value, value that would keep someone from letting it go, and value that would attract customers to buy it new.  GameStop is fostering second-hand sales behavior, but EA should be concerned with why so many "customers" aren't holding on to their products and ways to get substantially more people to buy new product (Wall of Shame?), making second-hand sales a minor issue.

If online services is an extra cost EA is not willing to completely absorb (cuz they're not so successful like others?), then let them apply both the "new game" online privilege and the minor online code purchase.  The market will work itself out.

Wish Wii had the option for simple "OK, I'll host this game" peer-to-peer online multiplayer instead of all this centralized server BS and gamertag online profile crap.  Just a simple "my machine finds your machine on the interwebbles, and we play."

[TJ Spyke]

Black, you keep harping about EA's servers, why? EA wants to use their own servers, they don't HAVE too. In fact, they refused to put online play into the Xbox versions of their games until Microsoft agreed to let them use their own servers rather than the Xbox Live servers.

As for the car example, this would be like not being allowed to use the radio and AC if you bought it used. Why should GameStop and all of the other stores that sell used games give ANY money to publishers? You don't see that happening with used CDs, DVDs, furniture, cars, or any other industry that lets you buy pre-owned. Do you also complain about rental places? Those are just as bad, maybe even worse, than stores that do sell new games.

If EA does go through with this stupid plan, I hope they immediately get hit with a lawsuit.