[Edit] Sony Plans to Make Used-Game Buyers Purchase Online Functionality

[BlueKite1675]

It works IF said pass is 5 bucks or so, but if they start messing around with single player then we a problem, besides i don't even use the online play anyways, Mainly because I suck at it.

 

[Dexiro]

Doesn't seem like a big deal, it's just an in-house version of the EA Pass thing that developers can use if they wish, and I assure you many developers won't use it.

The whole DRM thing isn't a massive bother to me because I don't bother with online multiplayer most of the time, but I will say that Sony are on shaky ground already due to this hacking thing so they really need to watch it.

 

[NLS]

Welcome to PC gaming anno 200X

 

[neonsword13-ops]

Some people can't buy all new games. (Like Me =( ) These codes better be cheap.

 

[Megacherv]

Tell me everything's free now, PS3 fans.

We never did. We said that online access was free which included online play for games that support it. We still have to pay for some stuff (console is slightly more expensive, PS Plus, DLC etc.) When EA brought this out we never copped-out and nervously changed our view, it's still the same.

 

[Dexiro]

Remember when used games were a bargain deal?

Soon there will be almost no reason to purchase a used game at all.

There never was a valid reason to buy used. Most used are only 5 dollars less and in much shittier condition than new. Boxes too.

I don't know where you're buying your used games but I've seen fairly decent games that came out less than a year ago for like $10. I usually wait for the well received games to drop down to around $20 before buying.

Also blu-ray discs are pretty much invincible, I have a massive collection of PS3 games and every single disc is in completely flawless condition, even when the box it was in was in crappy condition.

The box's usually aren't too bad either ~

 

[Liudeius]

The thing is they've already made their fair share on that game when it was sold new. They're no more entitled to profits from used games than Ford or Honda are the profits of used car sales.

Your car analogy doesn't work, games and cars are not the same.
Developers pay to keep servers running for multiplayer, cars require no extra monetary investment from the retailer after they are sold.

For a more accurate comparison, why do I have to both buy WoW, and pay a monthly membership.
Because they are paying to keep the servers up. (and it helps fund them to make better stuff)

 

[Mercsenary]

IGNDaily just covered this story direct from IGN.com

"Yesterday, German website Konsolentreff published early photos of the Resistance 3 PS3 bundle box showing a new logo that says "PSN Pass."

The message read: "Network features only available in countries that have PlayStation Store." However, no other details were provided.

SCEA responded to requests for comment this morning to clarify, saying this program requires customers to input a one-time use code to access a game's online capabilities, similar to EA's Online Pass introduced last year.

- Konsolentreff
"We are always evaluating new programs for our online offering, and starting with Resistance 3 this September, we will be instituting a network pass program for PS3 games with online capabilities," the spokesperson said. "This program will be game-specific. Games that are a part of this program will include a single-use registration code that grants the account holder redeeming the code full online access for that title.

"This is an important initiative as it allows us to accelerate our commitment to enhancing premium online services across our first party game portfolio."

If you don't have a code to input, say if you purchase the game used, you'll have to buy one through the Store. It's unclear how much one of these PSN Pass codes will cost, however.

Sony said it will announce additional details at a later date."

So essentially any used games you purchase in the future from places like Gamestop or such will require you to re-purchase that title from the PSN store for full online capabilities.

Original Story: ( http://ps3.ign.com/articles/118/1180810p1.html#.ThSbuHq-qU4.twitter )

So like the Cerberus Network?

 

[macacos2]

What the hell makes games so damn special?

Why isn't Hollywood complaining about used DVD sales? Why isn't the music industry complaining about used CD sales(or, why didn't they when people still bought CD's)?

It takes money to keep dedicated online servers up, which is the only thing people who buy used games from now on will miss (People with used games won't be able to access the online capabilities).

If you think for a while you'll realize that keeping dedicated servers up for a fairly long period of time (years, even) for the company is really expensive when they don't get income; which is basicaly what re-sold stuff takes away from the makers.

The Movie and the Music industry suffers less from this situation because the "price" required to set up their products (disc players, TVs, Radios) is covered by the users themselves.

 

[Liudeius]

Spoiler

The thing is they've already made their fair share on that game when it was sold new. They're no more entitled to profits from used games than Ford or Honda are the profits of used car sales.

Your car analogy doesn't work, games and cars are not the same.
Developers pay to keep servers running for multiplayer, cars require no extra monetary investment from the retailer after they are sold.

For a more accurate comparison, why do I have to both buy WoW, and pay a monthly membership.
Because they are paying to keep the servers up. (and it helps fund them to make better stuff)

It works perfectly well using logic.

Game company builds and releases Game X. They sell a copy to Bobby for 50 bucks. he gets bored with it and trades it in on Game Y. The store then resells it for half the price of a new copy.

Honda sells a new Civic to Jimmy. Jimmy then gets bored with it and trades it in on a '93 Camaro they had on the used lot. The dealer then re-sells that used Civic for half the price of a new one.

See how similar it is? You can replace the item name with anything from any industry and it still works. So why are game companies entitled to revenue that car companies aren't? Give me a good, logical explanation, and server maintenance costs don't count since nobody ever says car companies should get a cut of used car sales because they still make parts for thoes old things.

Logic...

By your cookie-cutter logic, "If I can put a word in this sentence and it works, it means it's a logical deduction," of course it does, but just because words can go places doesn't mean its true...

It's legal to sell salsa.
It's legal to sell sex slaves.
Oh wait, it isn't, Logic=Fail.

Servers do count. Replacement parts are charged for, you just disproved your own point further.
While you may be paying money for a used game, you are using the developer's bandwidth without providing a single penny to them. Even websites have ads so everyone in effect pays for their bandwidth, servers don't.

How does a used car have more in common with games than actual games?
MMO's are a valid example, and I could build a similarly "logical" fill-in-the-blank statement with them.

 

[Murray Kitson]

Really, I don't mind that at all. I usually purchase all my games new. Why should someplace like gamestop get the money from a game instead of the people who made it? If companies don't make money on games, they wont make games, its as simple as that. I gladly pay the extra five bucks for a new game because I'd rather support the industry than a game store.

I am the same way. But buying new doesn't just support the game industry, but also the store. They make money from every game sold, they just make more from second hand games. But there is an inherit value in knowing that I purchased a game new. I supported the industry I love. I support the store that supplied the game to me. And I don't support the casting of games you may not particularly like today to the side. I have a good collection of games going at the moment. But in that collection I have things like war for cybertron... played it for a bit, but not a particularly good game. but maybe in a few years and i feel like playing it again...

 

[DEAD34345]

The thing is they've already made their fair share on that game when it was sold new. They're no more entitled to profits from used games than Ford or Honda are the profits of used car sales.

Your car analogy doesn't work, games and cars are not the same.
Developers pay to keep servers running for multiplayer, cars require no extra monetary investment from the retailer after they are sold.

For a more accurate comparison, why do I have to both buy WoW, and pay a monthly membership.
Because they are paying to keep the servers up. (and it helps fund them to make better stuff)

It works perfectly well using logic.


Game company builds and releases Game X. They sell a copy to Bobby for 50 bucks. he gets bored with it and trades it in on Game Y. The store then resells it for half the price of a new copy.

Honda sells a new Civic to Jimmy. Jimmy then gets bored with it and trades it in on a '93 Camaro they had on the used lot. The dealer then re-sells that used Civic for half the price of a new one.



See how similar it is? You can replace the item name with anything from any industry and it still works. So why are game companies entitled to revenue that car companies aren't? Give me a good, logical explanation, and server maintenance costs don't count since nobody ever says car companies should get a cut of used car sales because they still make parts for thoes old things.

The difference is that there's no degradation in quality for games, whereas there is for cars and almost anything else. When you buy a used game you get exactly the same thing as someone who bought the full-price game, so there's essentially no reason to not buy pre-owned.

I'm just pointing out the difference here by the way, and I actually agree with you. Even if pre-owned games were available on day 1 (which they aren't), the fact is that every pre-owned copy out there has been bought at full-price originally. Why shouldn't people be able to sell-on what they have bought? The companies have already received their money, and people have every right to pass on what is now their property.

 

[Pingieking]

A dick move by Sony. While it won't really affect me, it's still a dick move.

 

[DeltaWolfson]

Wait what? Can some explain what this means? I'm not getting it for some reason.

 

[Irridium]

What the hell makes games so damn special?

Why isn't Hollywood complaining about used DVD sales? Why isn't the music industry complaining about used CD sales(or, why didn't they when people still bought CD's)?

It takes money to keep dedicated online servers up, which is the only thing people who buy used games from now on will miss (People with used games won't be able to access the online capabilities).

If you think for a while you'll realize that keeping dedicated servers up for a fairly long period of time (years, even) for the company is really expensive when they don't get income; which is basicaly what re-sold stuff takes away from the makers.

The Movie and the Music industry suffers less from this situation because the "price" required to set up their products (disc players, TVs, Radios) is covered by the users themselves.

Then perhaps it'd be a good idea to not focus so much on the multiplayer side of things if it's such a financial burden. And besides, the servers will go down no matter what, since sales will drop over time no matter what.

If you want to have a multiplayer component but not pay so much for it, do what PC games have been doing for decades, let the gamers make and run the servers. That way you don't have to spend so much maintaining them

But of course that won't happen, since Sony/MS want to control everything. Though Sony seems to be the more lenient. Point is, there are better ways to go about this instead of just trying to kill the used market.

 

[NickCaligo42]

So, immediately following the massive PR debacle with the Playstation Store hack and a three-week period with the online features basically turned off for every game, they bring this up.

Can't say I'm impressed. I wasn't all that affected by their shutdown, really I don't care about online features, but... yeah, this looks pretty freaking stupid. You shut down your service for three weeks and then immediately followed up with a draconian control system for the service customers don't think you can reliably keep running. Good work.

 

[Koroviev]

Can't blame them, developers and publishers do need there money, not like gamestop or stores like it are willing to give any of what they make back to them...

Gamestop doesn't owe the developers or the publishers anything. It simply serves as a medium between consumers. Do consumers receive as much in trade-ins as they would were they selling on their own? No, of course not. Gamestop is rendering them a service by giving them quick credit where they might have had to wait longer to sell their games. When Gamestop does sell the games, it is not unduly taking money away from game companies. A used item of any kind was new at some point. When that item is first sold, the companies make their money. That is the only time they should make money, as per the First-Sale doctrine. Once the item is sold, it is the property of the consumer. If the consumer decides to sell the item, whether to a company such as Gamestop or to another individual, then that person relinquishes his ownership of the item in question.

 

[Baneat]

Really, I don't mind that at all. I usually purchase all my games new. Why should someplace like gamestop get the money from a game instead of the people who made it? If companies don't make money on games, they wont make games, its as simple as that. I gladly pay the extra five bucks for a new game because I'd rather support the industry than a game store.

If gamestop make no money, they just disappear. Maybe we can cut them out, but at this point they're still needed to sell games to the masses, especially those not using steam. New games don't return the same profit for them

 

[keideki]

After the PSN outage Sony has been on thin ice... I do not think this is the best way to walk on thin ice (i.e. stomping on the hopes and dreams of gamers who can't or don't want to pay full price for a game)

 

[dfphetteplace]

Really, I don't mind that at all. I usually purchase all my games new. Why should someplace like gamestop get the money from a game instead of the people who made it? If companies don't make money on games, they wont make games, its as simple as that. I gladly pay the extra five bucks for a new game because I'd rather support the industry than a game store.

Because they already got paid for that copy.