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

[Irridium]

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?

So then will they charge people who buy new every 12 months to keep the servers up? Because eventually they'll be generating costs without any decent income. No matter what.

 

[Ferrious]

So then will they charge people who buy new every 12 months to keep the servers up? Because eventually they'll be generating costs without any decent income. No matter what.

No, because:

A) The market wouldn't accept that.
B) After 12 months most people have forgotten they even own the game. When they do remember they play for a bit and then move on. They generate low load. They do not generate the kind of load a new player does.
C) The developer/publisher has accepted that they will eventually be unable to sustain the infrastructure and will close the multiplayer down. They just expect B) to happen first for the majority of their customers.

 

[Unhappy Crow]

I don't see myself playing multiplayer as much as single player like the prequel. I only play Uncharted for the single player experience.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

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

If I buy the game, I am the customer. And the product is defective. For starters, the online code business robs the game of some it's resale value. I can't loan it to a friend or give it away to my brother. At least, not in a fully functional state, and that's a load of horse hockey. And when man-bear-pig bricks my console and steals my account, I'll be left with half a product. I don't even participate in the second hand market, and this garbage prevents me from doing what I want with the product that I paid for. It's a defect, albeit an intentional one, and I will definitely think twice before purchasing any defective product.

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.

Really now? I didnt know that looking around and getting the best deal on a purchase was considered being desperate. I think the only person being desperate here is you as you desperatly try to justify buying a game at $60 when there is an identical one sitting next to it for $50 or less.

I don't know who is desperate, but I do always wonder why people gamble on a used game for $55 when they could have it new for $60.

 

[chadachada123]

Naughty Dog seems to think that "1 person paying full price and playing the online for 2 years" and "1 person paying full price and playing for 1 year, then giving/selling to someone else who plays for one year" are fundamentally different, despite it costing them the EXACT SAME AMOUNT.

Wanting to include an online pass isn't the bad part. It's them being such assholes about it, and trying to use the most retarded reasoning that I've heard from any developer since, well, any developer trying to justify always-online DRM for PC games (Blizzard, Ubisoft...)

 

[chadachada123]

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.

Really now? I didnt know that looking around and getting the best deal on a purchase was considered being desperate. I think the only person being desperate here is you as you desperatly try to justify buying a game at $60 when there is an identical one sitting next to it for $50 or less.

How can you justify gambling on a used game for $55 when you can go to Target, or Walmart, or any of the many other stores that sell video games, and find it for $50 or less brand-new?

I don't see desperation in people buying used games so close to release. I just see stupid people making stupid decisions.

 

[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

If I buy the game, I am the customer. And the product is defective. For starters, the online code business robs the game of some it's resale value. I can't loan it to a friend or give it away to my brother. At least, not in a fully functional state, and that's a load of horse hockey. And when man-bear-pig bricks my console and steals my account, I'll be left with half a product. I don't even participate in the second hand market, and this garbage prevents me from doing what I want with the product that I paid for. It's a defect, albeit an intentional one, and I will definitely think twice before purchasing any defective product.

wrong again
the customer bought a fully functioning game from the publisher
and then sold a defective product to you because he already used up a portion of a game
you are not the customer since you didn't pay squat to the people who produced this product
that's not the fault of the game company but the fault of your seller who made a functioning product less valuable by giving it away
it's not the company's fault if your seller scratched the disc before selling it to you

the developers and publisher do not intend it to be sold again so why should they give a shit about resell value?
the used game market has just been tolerated by the companies and then became an accepted concept and a given by consumers
that doesn't make it right or anything

welcome to capitalism
if you can't afford a new game you can't afford a new game
you neither have a right nor the obligation to own a certain game

 

[F'Angus]

Wait no... because if that's true then Naughtydog would only be able to run online if people do actually buy Preowned games...otherwise they wouldn't be gaining any extra money than they would with normal sales.

Basically then if no one buys preowned then they wouldn't have the extra preowned online pass money to run muliplayer.

 

[aksel]

What does a used game typically cost?

I mean, the price for a used game, plus the 10$ is no way near 60$, right?

Also, to people buying used games: Buy them online. You'll save money (which you can spend on online content or cookies etc.) AND the guy selling it will make more off the sale.

I think it's fair enough to pay 10$ extra if I want extra content. Now, I haven't the slightest clue what the Uncharted 3 online content is, but if it is worth it, sure, I'll cough up some extra dough.

...

Also, piracy. If you can't afford the game, download it, and pay when you can.
I know it's quite the taboo issue on The Escapist, but I'll admit I do it. What I also do is pay what I think the game is worth.

Indie games like Machinarium, Amnesia, Super Meat Boy and the newly released The Binding of Isaac, are good examples in which I payed more than the initial cost (I think I bought 3 copies of Machinarium and the soundtrack as well).

Games I don't want to pay for, I rarely finish. If I finish it, I deem it worth paying for.

The Humble Indie Bundles are awesome for using this payment method. They make millions on a few games, which on their own wouldn't make nearly as much.

 

[getoffmycloud]

What does a used game typically cost?

I mean, the price for a used game, plus the 10$ is no way near 60$, right?

Also, to people buying used games: Buy them online. You'll save money (which you can spend on online content or cookies etc.) AND the guy selling it will make more off the sale.

I think it's fair enough to pay 10$ extra if I want extra content. Now, I haven't the slightest clue what the Uncharted 3 online content is, but if it is worth it, sure, I'll cough up some extra dough.

...

Also, piracy. If you can't afford the game, download it, and pay when you can.
I know it's quite the taboo issue on The Escapist, but I'll admit I do it. What I also do is pay what I think the game is worth.

Indie games like Machinarium, Amnesia, Super Meat Boy and the newly released The Binding of Isaac, are good examples in which I payed more than the initial cost (I think I bought 3 copies of Machinarium and the soundtrack as well).

Games I don't want to pay for, I rarely finish. If I finish it, I deem it worth paying for.

The Humble Indie Bundles are awesome for using this payment method. They make millions on a few games, which on their own wouldn't make nearly as much.

There is no excuse for piracy since when was a right that you have to have a game if you want something save up the money and buy it yourself. I don't walk into a shop take stuff of the shelves and go I will pay what I think it is worth later when I have the money.

 

[razer17]

Release server software -> Free servers for forever.

That would work if this was a PC title, but I can't see Sony allowing random servers onto the PSN network.

The most annoying part of this is not the online pass, it's the way they tried to justify it. I'd care a lot less about it if they weren't giving out crappy excuses.

This isn't going to stop second hand sales all that much, anyway. If I want a game to play online, I'll buy it new. If I'm buying a game somewhere down the line I'm probably getting it for a single player campaign.

 

[razer17]

There is no excuse for piracy since when was a right that you have to have a game if you want something save up the money and buy it yourself. I don't walk into a shop take stuff of the shelves and go I will pay what I think it is worth later when I have the money.

If you walk into a shop and take, say, a pizza, then that pizza is gone. It's not the same. That analogy would only work if you could take the pizza, eat it, but the original pizza was still on the shelf.

 

[TheDooD]

snip

It true my friend been running a forum and a fairly large storage server for like 4 years and it only costs him $70 a YEAR for the service. This is all money grubbing lies, these guys don't want to spend money to keep their customers happy. All they care about is lining their own pockets.

 

[getoffmycloud]

There is no excuse for piracy since when was a right that you have to have a game if you want something save up the money and buy it yourself. I don't walk into a shop take stuff of the shelves and go I will pay what I think it is worth later when I have the money.

If you walk into a shop and take, say, a pizza, then that pizza is gone. It's not the same. That analogy would only work if you could take the pizza, eat it, but the original pizza was still on the shelf.

ok fair point the analogy was rubbish but piracy is then in fact worse than my analogy because only I could steal that pizza but an infinite number of people can pirate one copy of a game

 

[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.

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

But the multiplayer has still been bought and payed for by the original buyer.

 

[Electric Alpaca]

A bit of a misnomer - the game isn't being duplicated by the used market, merely Person A being replaced by Person B.

I would much prefer if developers would just be honest and state 'Primary sales have an element of maintenance in relation to the period of time anticipated online, a secondary purchase is a variable we are unable to account for and therefore must place an entry fee to help offset the unpredictability of single disk turnaround'.

But I guess treating your fanbase with respect and like they have intelligence isn't in fashion.

 

[chadachada123]

How can you justify gambling on a used game for $55 when you can go to Target, or Walmart, or any of the many other stores that sell video games, and find it for $50 or less brand-new?

I don't see desperation in people buying used games so close to release. I just see stupid people making stupid decisions.

I am not seeing the gambling part here. If there are two identical copies of a game and one costs less I am going to buy the one that costs less. There is no gambling involved because if something is wrong with the game or it breaks I can just return it. If the game costs $55 used somewhere then a brand new copy will not cost less at a place like target or walmart.

The gambling can be from having to buy the extra pass if the original owner already used it, yada yada. Your used copy may also work at first and then crap out past the return date.

That's not the main thing, though, and my use of the word "gamble" was light.

You are completely wrong about the pricing, though. I work at Target and have seen brand new games on sale for $40 a week after release, with used prices at Gamestop still $55. Perhaps you've simply never been to Target before, but they have great sales for some of their games fresh out of the gate. The week of the release of Dark Souls, you got a $10 giftcard for buying it. Brink went on sale the week after its release for, if I recall correctly, $50. Portal 2 went on sale for $40 the week after its release.

So, yeah, I won't call you an idiot, just hugely misinformed about pricing.

 

[Electric Alpaca]

Doubled up, singled down

 

[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

But the multiplayer has still been bought and payed for by the original buyer.

he paid his time on the server not yours
or do you try to get with used movie tickets into the cinema claiming that the other guy already paid for you?

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

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

If I buy the game, I am the customer. And the product is defective. For starters, the online code business robs the game of some it's resale value. I can't loan it to a friend or give it away to my brother. At least, not in a fully functional state, and that's a load of horse hockey. And when man-bear-pig bricks my console and steals my account, I'll be left with half a product. I don't even participate in the second hand market, and this garbage prevents me from doing what I want with the product that I paid for. It's a defect, albeit an intentional one, and I will definitely think twice before purchasing any defective product.

wrong again
the customer bought a fully functioning game from the publisher
and then sold a defective product to you because he already used up a portion of a game
you are not the customer since you didn't pay squat to the people who produced this product
that's not the fault of the game company but the fault of your seller who made a functioning product less valuable by giving it away
it's not the company's fault if your seller scratched the disc before selling it to you

the developers and publisher do not intend it to be sold again so why should they give a shit about resell value?
the used game market has just been tolerated by the companies and then became an accepted concept and a given by consumers
that doesn't make it right or anything

welcome to capitalism
if you can't afford a new game you can't afford a new game
you neither have a right nor the obligation to own a certain game

I personally don't buy anything second hand, remember? I am the original customer. And the product is not fully functioning even for the first purchaser, for reasons I have already described. The only portion of the game that is 'used up' is the ridiculous online pass, which is what we're here to talk about. For those who buy second hand, it is directly the fault of the publisher and developer that it no longer functions completely. We can argue if that is a good thing or bad, but that is who implements the online pass and that is what it does. You seem to be placing responsibility for the online pass on the head of the original purchaser, which is way off.

I know developers don't give a shit about resale value. So what? I'm the one who cares. Me.

There are used markets for everything, and it's even codified in law that I can sell what I legally own. Game publishers simply find themselves uniquely positioned to influence my ability to sell what I own because of the nature of the product.

"Welcome to capitalism" is meaningless. I could construe my argument as pro capitalist and it would be just as empty. Lets just move past it. I can afford new games. I only buy new. And I have no idea what rights and obligations have to do with any of this.