TA Poll Recap: Week of November 13th, 2011

By Mark Delaney, 7 years ago
Last week's poll asked for your opinions on the online pass format that we're seeing implemented more and more each year. Though many industry analysts predict the online pass will eventually become part of every retail release, it doesn't mean those of you that oppose it can't voice your opinions. The results of the poll indicate that most of you do not want to pay the extra fee when buying a game pre-owned.

A whopping 71.4% of you said you do not support the pricing format an online pass has introduced over the past few years. That left 28.6% who said you mostly buy new, thus are unaffected by an online pass, or you don't mind paying the extra. The resulting discussion in the forums grew very heated, which tends to be the case with anything when money is involved.

There were many well-reasoned responses and I want to highlight one here. This comes from TA member Shinerbock88

First, this will be long and there will be no tl; dr version. So run away if you don't want to read a mindless post. Sorry lol.

This is a tough one. I do 100% agree with developers coming up with a method to recoup some of their money that they lose from used game sales. I've never sold or traded in any game I've bought. Ever. The only time I've bought used is when there was no other alternative (e.g., new games are not in stock due to the game being out for a while). However, if another store has the game new, then I will leave the store that only has used to buy new. I am a firm believer in companies getting the profits they are due and I'd boycott Gamestop if they were the only company to do this, but I'd be a hypocrite if I quit buying from Gamestop and bought from another game shop that sells used games (I hear even Best Buy is going to start selling used games).

It also pisses me off that every time I go into Gamestop and ask to get a game that's been out for a few months that the clerks don't even ask me if I want new or used; since most of Gamestop's profits are tied into used games/consoles/item sales, they simply go for the used copy. I ask for a new copy and they even sometimes say, "I don't think we have any more new copies left." I ask them to check and whaddaya know, there's a new copy of the game. This is unethical practice on Gamestop's part as far as I'm concerned.

I choose the support the game industry, not the retailers. Gamers will be fine if Gamestop goes out of business; however, it would be a sad day if some of our top game devs go under or have to merge with companies like EA and use them as a publisher.

I'm even more for the online passes if it keeps games from going to a download only system even if for a few years longer (I'm sure all games will be download only in the future). I like to go back and replay games that are DECADES old. Let's say games are download only now and I wanna play FFXIII in the year 2050. How am I going to do that without keeping it on my HDD that is like 5 generations of consoles past? I have to go redownload it and I seriously doubt companies like Microsoft will keep Final Fantasy XIII on their download servers when Final Fantasy XXXVIII is released. So, unless console developers are planning on giving us an infinite GB HDD, we're going to be screwed.

Now, the other side of the token... over the past couple of years, with the advent of Games on Demand, we get to see just how greedy game companies can be (or maybe this is just Microsoft's doing?). Game companies save a TON of cash on printing manuals, pressing DVDs, molding DVD cases and saving materials when people buy games via download. Yet these games are the same price as if I were to go to a brick and mortar store to pick up a physical copy of the game. It stands to reason that the savings should be passed on to the consumer, even if it's just a fraction of the dollars saved. But, no, they're blatant about it and charge the same amount as a physical copy. Game companies excuse for games being so pricey was, in part, due to piracy of games. But Games on Demand have proven this is a load of BS. One can say the same thing about the music and film industry, yet, the last I checked, music and movies are the same price on iTunes as if one were to buy the CD or DVD.

All in all, I agree with the online pass. It would just be nice if the game industry would give a little back to those that actually do the right thing or will be forced to do the right thing in the future.


Yes, there's more... I forgot to mention that I've heard many argument that companies need to start making better games, games have to be longer, etc. This is a cop out. With all the reviews, game demos and videos readily accessible to anyone with an internet connection, there is no excuse for buying a game that turned out to be a steaming pile. If I buy a bad game (Dark Void, anyone?) then it's my own damned fault for buying a questionable game the day it was released instead of waiting for reviews and such to start popping up on the internet. I deal with it. I'm not going to make someone else suffer the consequences of my being stupid enough to buy the game.

On the other side of the coin... AGAIN, game developers need to quit releasing games and then releasing DLC a week or a month afterwards. If it's that close to being ready, it needs to be put into the game. Some game companies even have the gall to put DLC ON THE GAME DISC and then release it as DLC later. More BS that needs to stop.

Okay, I'm done now. foshoyo.
Foshoyo indeed.

This week's poll asks what the most underrated game on the 360 is. Obviously, "underrated" is a subjective term, which should make for some good responses. Look for the poll on the homepage and join in the discussion too.

Happy gaming!
Mark Delaney
Written by Mark Delaney
Mark is a Boston native now living in Portland, Oregon. He's the Editorial Manager on TA, loves story-first games, and is one of three voices on the TA Playlist podcast. Outside of games he likes biking, sci-fi, the NFL, and spending time with his fiancée and son. He almost never writes in the third person.