"Creators should receive.

If you don't think the creators deserve it, then just don't buy it."

Lol, who are you to tell us what we should and shouldn't buy? It's perfectly legal to buy used games. So by your logic, should I make out a check to the creators that made my used car?

If you've ever bought a used car, then go ahead and send the amount of money you paid for the car to the creators of your car, or at least HALF of that, otherwise you are a hypocrite.

What makes gaming so much more special than the automobile/movie/music industry? I honestly can't believe there are people as stupid as you who support this kind of greedy nickel and diming scheme crap. They say people who buy used are "ruining the industry" (despite the fact that gaming is the biggest industry in entertainment), but it's actually going to be people like you who will be the downfall of the industry for supporting this kind of greed.

@evrfighter

The reason why people supported Sonys decision is because it doesnt really effect most of us ps3 gamers. we mostly buy sonys games for the sp experience.

This further reinforces the fact most of us p3 gamers dont play online. most of the people flaming ubi are not ps3 gamers.

@bereaver

Prove to me that it is the "CREATORS" who will be benefiting from this.

You think that the developer should get a kickback from a used sale? They shouldn't get paid twice for the same disc?

They should assume that the disc they sold is being played by the original consumer. It's not like they have to accommodate two different players on their server.

Person A buys a game, and plays its online mode. The developer/publisher is accommodating Person A on their server.

Person A sells the game to another person.

Now person B is playing online. Person A is gone. The developer/publisher is still accommodating one person on their server. They are not being burdened in any way. They still made their money from selling their disc.

Their argument is that if used game sales are allowed to continue without these passes, their will be no incentive for SOME people (that is to say, poor people who cannot afford the full price of the game) to buy the game brand new.

The publishers are basically picking on a small group of people who wanted to be economically conscious. "Why should I buy it brand new when I can buy it used?"

The publishers don't like that there is another industry, the used-retail market, that is making money from selling their products. They don't like private individuals who purchased the game to sell the game to another private individual.

But where are the facts? How much potential money do these publishers lose from the "Used Games" market?

And what about their unfounded assumption that "used game" buyers would purchase the game new if they didn't have another choice?

What about the people who are being hurt because of this? How many consoles can I play this game on? How many accounts? If I purchase this game, why can I only play it on my original console? What if I make another account or my console breaks or my hard drive gets corrupted and I have to create a new account and buy a new console?

The Pass system becomes another form of control, another way to make money where it is not earned and not deserved.

We can no longer try out ubisoft games via rentals and if you buy it it's yours forever because you can not sell it to anyone. Look on the bright side though, you can still take sucky games that you mistaken for something cool to the shooting range. Although, it is a 60$ target since you can't buy it used.

Really? The right to use online servers is included in the purchase? Then how do you explain a platform holder charging a subscription fee for basic online gameplay? Its funny that I never heard you complain about that, yet you have the gall to call out others as gullible and ignorant.

***Really? The right to use online servers is included in the purchase?***

The right of accessing the game online is conferred with the purchase, yes.

***Then how do you explain a platform holder charging a subscription fee for basic online gameplay?***

The fee has been there from the start so the opportunity to complain has long past, almost a decade now. That said, MS do offer you other features that competing networks don't in addition to online play and introduced many features to console that other competitors is slowly getting. They have revamped the interface at least twice now.

Ironically, MS often maintain their own server, which means servers aren't shut down like on PS3/PC:

http://www.gamemunition.com...

The other distinction is that, it's not like you bought into the platform and all of a sudden they are forcing you to pay a fee. It was up front and you had the opportunity to say yay, or nay to the platform.

***Its funny that I never heard you complain about that, yet you have the gall to call out others as gullible and ignorant.***

I have actually complained about it if you go far back enough in my comment history.

My ignorance comment is to the fact that people claim *after* decades of online gaming coming with the game essentially free, their developers all of a sudden need the fees and need some kind of protection from the used sales as cogniveritas pointed out above.

If customers want to support it, that is fine with their money. Just don't be gullible and ignorant and tell me the developers somehow need the fees. They don't!

This will not affect used games sales one bit, as you just reduce the trade-in value. Retailers profit margin stays the same and that used game now appears even cheaper than before.!

I don't pretend MS needs the Xbox Live fees. They do it because it is a profitable business and they offer me a choice to say yay or nay, prior to buying into the platform.