PSN Pass Makes Uncharted 3's Online Content Possible, Says Dev

[Logan Westbrook]

PSN Pass Makes Uncharted 3's Online Content Possible, Says Dev

Keeping Uncharted 3's multiplayer running would be difficult if everyone playing hadn't paid, says Naughty Dog.

Naughty Dog, developers of the Uncharted [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004EQCCI4/ref=s9_simh_gw_p63_d0_g63_i2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1D9BRB6S07PQJZ06VSGC&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846] series, says that without the money from Sony's PSN Pass it wouldn't be able to afford to include as much online content as it has with Uncharted 3, and would possibly have to separate the online and offline content into separate products.

"We're giving out a huge amount of content," said Uncharted 3 director Justin Richmond, "and part of the reason for the online pass is that when that stuff goes online, it isn't free. We have to pay for servers and all this different stuff to maintain it, and so at some point, you know, games have to make money." Richmond also said that besides bandwidth costs, the actual content - which he said was different from anything else in the industry - had taken a lot of time, and presumably money, to create.

He said that the online content wasn't just a "throw away death match," and that the co-op mode was essentially an entire alternate history. In fact, he said that if played in the correct order, the co-op missions told a single, continuous story. He also said - predictably enough - that the sheer amount of content made it worth the price of admission.

Sony must have projections and estimates about how much money it can expect to make from the PSN Pass; otherwise Richmond's comments just seem silly. It's also a slightly disingenuous argument, because pre-owned sales don't add additional load on the game's servers; they just replace one user with another. Online passes are a great way for publishers and developers to try and make some money on pre-owned sales, but acting like it's the only way that significant online components are viable just isn't true.

Uncharted 3 comes out for PS3 on November 3rd.

Source: The Sixth Axis [http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2011/10/17/interview-naughty-dog-on-uncharted-3/2/]




Permalink

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

Epic eye roll for this nonsense.

 

[Notthatbright]

Translation: We want to make people who buy used pay us. Either $10 for the pass or $60 for the game. They'll have two choices, since they didn't like the game enough (or didn't have enough money) to get it new: Pay extra, or Don't buy it.

They can't show numbers and magically say "These are the people who wouldn't have bought the game, but did/didn't", this online pass is desperation of the worst kind.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

In other words, "we're screwing over our customers with a defective product."

Actually, the biggest cost for developers right now is not the second hand market but development itself. They should not develop games at all and just take the money directly from our paychecks and provide no product or service. They have to do what's best for the industry, after all.

 

[Baresark]

Haha, what nonsense. Even if you buy a used copy of the game, the person who originally bought it payed for the use of the server, and they are no longer playing, meaning it doesn't require more server space than actual sales.

This whole pass thing is nonsense, and I get tired of these companies shoveling lies to make up for their lack of proper game development. If the game was that good, no one would get rid of it. If the online component was going to be worth anything, people would keep playing it long after the completion of the campaign. I find it rather amusing that they are already telling us how short and ultimately useless the game is going to be.

Also, Gamestop will still just lower the price. They will make some kind of deal like: if you buy it used for $55, you will get the online pass for free. That way they can sell a used copy to someone who isn't interested in the online for $55 still, with an option to take or leave the online pass. So, they will shovel it to customers, make a little less money off of it by giving Sony their money... and then all the companies will continue to uselessly complain about used sales.

 

[viranimus]

without the money from Sony's PSN Pass it wouldn't be able to afford to include as much online content as it has with Uncharted 3, and would possibly have to separate the online and offline content into separate products.

Really?!?! Thats an option /raises hand Well sign me up for a single player game then! Why didnt you people say that before?!

Seriously. Heres a fix to the problem.. Dont offer the multiplayer. Honestly, I would not mind seeing that. An alternate reality where even though there is internet access available people rarely play anything but single player games. In that world there are multiplayer games, but they tend to be more like expansions to an already existing single player affair. That way you have two different time tables, design expectatons and the freedom to not try to cram it all into the same catch all package.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Translation: We want to make people who buy used pay us. Either $10 for the pass or $60 for the game. They'll have two choices, since they didn't like the game enough (or didn't have enough money) to get it new: Pay extra, or Don't buy it.

They can't show numbers and magically say "These are the people who wouldn't have bought the game, but did/didn't", this online pass is desperation of the worst kind.

Buying used within the first 4-5 months of the game being released is desperation of the worst kind. You know, that window where it's still only $5 cheaper than the new product, and the new product has gone on sale multiple times at other retailers, but people will still ***** at publishers, because they're lazy and can't be assed to find sales.

If the game was that good, no one would get rid of it.

Bullshit.

 

[Andronicus]

I honestly don't see what everyone's problem is. I would gladly pay less money if it meant I didn't have to put up with MP.

...or should that be the other way round?

Nah, that sounds about right.

EDIT

If the game was that good, no one would get rid of it.

Bullshit.

QFT

 

[GonzoGamer]

In other words, "we're screwing over our customers with a defective product."

Actually, the biggest cost for developers right now is not the second hand market but development itself. They should not develop games at all and just take the money directly from our paychecks and provide no product or service. They have to do what's best for the industry, after all.

That's hilarious but true.
It seems like there's a ton of redundancy in development and they really need to simplify shit. Every time gamers complain about prices and stupid schemes like online pass, the publishers complain about development costs when it's their own stupid fault. Games have always been expensive to make yet the good ones make a hell of a lot of money.
I would've hoped that it would just lead to less shovelware over time but I guess publisher CEOs have brother in laws who they need to give jobs to as well.
Also, when are they finally going to demand a single format. If you could use the same disc in a pc, 360, or ps3 they would save tons of money...and that's not even taking into consideration the packaging costs or the fact that many of us ps3 owners probably would buy more $60 games if we could get the same quality product that the 360 usually (and the pc often) gets. Now I know that's ultimately up to the platform developers like Sony to actually act like grownups and cooperate, but there's a lot of leverage the big devs have as well.
But that's not really relevant in terms of this game anyway.

So many games this gen have been hyped up for this and that and very few of them have come close to the hype. I'm still renting this but if there's really so much value in the online that I can't try during the rental, I'm not likely to buy it.

 

[Irridium]

Wow, this is the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.

If multiplayer is so damn financially straining on you, then don't put multiplayer into the fucking game!!

And I have the multiplayer thanks to Subway. It's fun, but nowhere near as fun as you think, Naughty Dog. I had to get it through subway because of your god damn pass. My brother and I are splitting the cost for the game, we are BOTH paying for it. But only one of us would be able to play online thanks to this crap.

And what about when time goes on? When the new buyers have long-since paid for their slot on your servers? Will you ask them to re-buy the multiplayer? Because judging by how you're acting, that seems like a possibility of happening.

 

[drkchmst]

One of the most subsidized industries in the US...and they still whine they don't have enough money. Bite me and give us our tax dollars back then. I don't really know why the industry is subsidized in the first place.

 

[twm1709]

For some reason I'm doubting Uncharted 3 isn't going to make much money.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Will you ask them to re-buy the multiplayer? Because judging by how you're acting, that seems like a possibility of happening.

By their logic, yes. Unless they just forgot that no matter how many times a game trades hands, the number of players on the server is the same.

 

[Denamic]

Release server software -> Free servers for forever.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

:/

Unless this 'new, innovative multiplayer experience' = 100+ hours of innovative co-op experience and over 70+ gametypes spanning over 20+ map, I'm gonna call bullcrap.

 

[sindremaster]

That's the most stupid thing i've ever heard. Someone buying a used game doesn't create a new player online it just replaces an old one.

 

[vivster]

In other words, "we're screwing over our customers with a defective product."

not correct at all since used buyers are not their customers
their customers are getting a fully functional game(where you have to spend 10 seconds to type a code)

actually i'm a bit surprised about this negative reaction
sure it's cool now to bash Sony and EA but i thought of naughty dog as a fairly likable publisher that people would forgive
seems i erred on that

 

[vivster]

That's the most stupid thing i've ever heard. Someone buying a used game doesn't create a new player online it just replaces an old one.

an old one who wouldn't be online anymore thus not costing the company anymore money
the new player creates costs where there wouldn't be any

 

[Ferrious]

Argh!

Ever since Jimmy Sterling threw this "one player replaces another" line out it's been driving me up the wall. Yes, the number of players remains the same but if they figure you are going to play the game for 12 months (totally arbitrary number) then they've priced it that one new purchase funds a player's spot on the server for 12 months.

Once you sell it used (because you're bored of it and don't play any more) you increase the load on the server for another 12 months (substitute arbitrary period here) that they have received no income for. You've generated costs without providing any income.

Everyone is acting like server costs are one-off ("I paid for server power for 10,000 users") and not on-going ("I pay for the bandwidth users consume each month, the server power each month, the maintenance and replacement of hardware each month, etc, etc").

I'm not weighing in on the whole "pre-owned" argument, but can we drop this false line of reasoning please?