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

[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.

he paid his time on the server not yours

If I buy the game new, and play the multiplayer for a year, and a friend of mine buys the game and sells it after six months to someone else who plays it for six months, why should they get more money when my friend already paid the same as I did?

or do you try to get with used movie tickets into the cinema claiming that the other guy already paid for you?

Have you ever bought a used car? a used movie? anything used? Why should videogames be any different? Sorry but a used movie ticket is not the same as a used game.

 

[chadachada123]

snip

Fair enough, I tend to forget that non-Americans frequent this site often as well, unless some indicator is given (like that Australians tend to put AUD in their pricing).

Sorry for the hostility, but yeah, pricing here in the states can be random at best, with gamers buying mostly exclusively from Gamestop or Best Buy, and family-members/relatives buying from Walmart, etc, without any comparisons between the two for pricing. At least, in my part of the US.

 

[chadachada123]

snip

Professional reviews can grossly differ from purchaser opinion, you know.

On top of that, how good a game is for its first playthrough does not guarantee longevity, which would be a reason to sell the game to someone else.

If a game is really good, and stays really good, few people are going to sell it. Like Super Smash Bros, for example. You'll rarely see those being sold used (even in the times closer to the release of them), and those that sold it are probably just shitty gamers. An exception being Yahtzee and other single-player gamers, but whatever.

 

[chadachada123]

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?

I go to a theater and buy a ticket. I go in and watch half of the movie, then walk out and sell my ticket to someone else, who goes in and enjoys the rest of the movie, with me no longer enjoying that movie.

If we're gonna use shitty analogies, at least be consistent with them. Selling a game to someone else is just a transfer of resources, NOT a use of additional resources. The seat in that theater does not cost extra if the first person gives the ticket away; it'll cost the same.

 

[Epona]

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.

Tactics like this make me want to buy used even if I am only saving $10 (the Edge card) because I don't want to encourage this kind of nonsense from publishers. So when your tactics to fight something actually help that which you are fighting, is that bad?

 

[chadachada123]

snip

Professional reviews can grossly differ from purchaser opinion, you know.

On top of that, how good a game is for its first playthrough does not guarantee longevity, which would be a reason to sell the game to someone else.

If a game is really good, and stays really good, few people are going to sell it. Like Super Smash Bros, for example. You'll rarely see those being sold used (even in the times closer to the release of them), and those that sold it are probably just shitty gamers. An exception being Yahtzee and other single-player gamers, but whatever.

Even if that were true (and it bloody isn't, there are a metric fucktonne of used copies of Brawl floating around, and Melee is the easiest preowned Gamecube game to get your hands on), but even if, all that prooves is that fighting games tend not to be traded in, Whereas if you didn't notice, Uncharted 3 is not a fighting game. ITs easy to miss, considering the hand to hand combat alone for Uncharted 3 has had more care and balance put into it than the entire Smash Brothers franchise, but I assure you its not the same genre and therefore isn't bloody compatable.

I think I was basing whether or not pre-owned copies exist on the fact that me and everyone else I know that has a gamecube owns Melee. Any (most) pre-owns are from people selling the console as well.

In any event, the genre of the game means nothing here. If it has replay value, it won't be sold to Gamestop very often. Additionally, quit treating this game like it's the goddamn messiah of gaming, eesh. We shall see, from the number of used copies, if the game has any replay value or is a one-trick pony that'd be good for a rental at best.

 

[Epona]

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.

Very true! Just another "oh we shot ourselves in the foot" moment for the publishers.

 

[Epona]

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.

Tactics like this make me want to buy used even if I am only saving $10 (the Edge card) because I don't want to encourage this kind of nonsense from publishers. So when your tactics to fight something actually help that which you are fighting, is that bad?

Considering the person likely to say this is a crazy vindictive person who will do something like this and deprive themselves of content out of pure spite, they likely realise they can't win with you, and gave up trying to satisfy you, as you won't allow yourself to be satisfied.

Deprive myself of content? Where do you get this idea? I can buy it used, with the online pass intact for less and give no more than $10 to publishers who want to be overly greedy and lie to me about it.

 

[Epona]

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.

Sales =/= regular, every day price.

Some games will be on sale sometimes but all games will not always be on sale, that's why it's a sale and not regular price. People waiting for a game to go on sale are wasting their time because that game may never go on sale.

In other words, you can't compare regular prices to sale prices because sales prices are not dependable.

 

[chadachada123]

snip

Professional reviews can grossly differ from purchaser opinion, you know.

On top of that, how good a game is for its first playthrough does not guarantee longevity, which would be a reason to sell the game to someone else.

If a game is really good, and stays really good, few people are going to sell it. Like Super Smash Bros, for example. You'll rarely see those being sold used (even in the times closer to the release of them), and those that sold it are probably just shitty gamers. An exception being Yahtzee and other single-player gamers, but whatever.

Even if that were true (and it bloody isn't, there are a metric fucktonne of used copies of Brawl floating around, and Melee is the easiest preowned Gamecube game to get your hands on), but even if, all that prooves is that fighting games tend not to be traded in, Whereas if you didn't notice, Uncharted 3 is not a fighting game. ITs easy to miss, considering the hand to hand combat alone for Uncharted 3 has had more care and balance put into it than the entire Smash Brothers franchise, but I assure you its not the same genre and therefore isn't bloody compatable.

I think I was basing whether or not pre-owned copies exist on the fact that me and everyone else I know that has a gamecube owns Melee. Any (most) pre-owns are from people selling the console as well.

In any event, the genre of the game means nothing here. If it has replay value, it won't be sold to Gamestop very often. Additionally, quit treating this game like it's the goddamn messiah of gaming, eesh. We shall see, from the number of used copies, if the game has any replay value or is a one-trick pony that'd be good for a rental at best.

We all saw that Uncharted 2 had incredible replay value and was unbelievably good, yet there are still preowned copies around. Same with Batman Arkham Asylum, and every fucking game released this generation or last. I'm curious, what is this hypothetical game with so much replay value that it proves your theory is anything other than a complete failure and in no way connected to any reality.

You are using circular reasoning. You say that games with little replay value get traded in. How can you tell which one has little replay value? They get traded in. What is that? Thats textbook circular reasoning, the crowning awful logic.

I'm not using circular reasoning, because my logic for trading in games is THAT they have little replay value. I'm basing data on my own personal experiences, since I have NOTHING ELSE to base it off of.

Likewise, you have nothing to base your own assertions on, and while it is slightly fallacious of me to assert that the plural of anecdotal evidence (that is, that the only reason that I would trade in a game is if it no longer has replay value) is data, my argument itself is not circular in basis. However, you bring nothing to the table with your arguments.

In any event, I think that Uncharted 2 was complete crap, making your argument against my own just as moot.

Also, you seemed to have FAILED to read one of my earlier points, that a person that traded in Melee/Brawl was a shitty gamer. Similarly, perhaps to you, a person that would trade in Uncharted 2 is a shitty gamer. If the game had replay value, though, people that bought it AND LIKED IT would not trade it in.

Thus, we can base the replay value of a game off of the percentage that is traded in, but I did forget to include that the number would be skewed by people that simply didn't like the game, something that has little to do with how good the game itself was, only the audience that it caters to.

*Edit for grammar*

 

[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.

Sales =/= regular, every day price.

Some games will be on sale sometimes but all games will not always be on sale, that's why it's a sale and not regular price. People waiting for a game to go on sale are wasting their time because that game may never go on sale.

The thing, though, is that every major title I've seen for sale at Target HAS gone on sale, generally right after release. The point being that, before spending $5 less to get a used copy, it would be smart to look around other stores first, since there is likely one on sale at another store.

I'm not arguing to wait for sales, only to check around before deciding on the $55 used version over the $60 new one.

 

[Epona]

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.

Sales =/= regular, every day price.

Some games will be on sale sometimes but all games will not always be on sale, that's why it's a sale and not regular price. People waiting for a game to go on sale are wasting their time because that game may never go on sale.

The thing, though, is that every major title I've seen for sale at Target HAS gone on sale, generally right after release. The point being that, before spending $5 less to get a used copy, it would be smart to look around other stores first, since there is likely one on sale at another store.

I'm not arguing to wait for sales, only to check around before deciding on the $55 used version over the $60 new one.

Sure, that's fine but never depend on something being on sale the week after release because that's the one time that it won't happen.

 

[Eve Charm]

This is just going to be sad new trend isn't it? Just gonna keep lying to us, telling us it's free to play online forever if we have a online pass but to someone that buys the game used or rents it the money for the time or space hasn't already been paid for buy the first person.

We're not stupid and the fact that you keep playing off that lie just keeps making us lose respect for you devs.

Either
A) Find a way to allow online pass owners to actually play online still when they don't have their games anymore. So their online space can actually still be used by the original owners.

B) Sell the damn online separately. $40 for the single player then $20 on top of it if they want to use the company servers to play online. Why is this different? your not selling online passes to people that don't want them. Hell just sell me the online part to games like COD for 30 bucks, they don't make much of a single player game anyway.


If your still gonna cry whine and moan about server costs, sell timed online passes with games, I.E. month free, need to pay months after like MMO's. Or just shut the servers off after a year or two, other games have done it, it's already in all the terms when they buy the game and go online, and no one is selling the games new anymore after a year or two these days unless it's a top seller.

 

[Jumplion]

I have a legitimate question about servers that is probably a dumb question for you tech savvy server nerds, and possibly straight out of my ass;

Does buying one copy of the game, and then trading it with other people, really only give one server spot?

See, here's what I'm thinking. The person that bought the game new, online pass n' all, purchases one server spot for the multiplayer. Okay, whatever. The system takes the console's information, the person's account info, all that good stuff.

Now the person gives it off to a friend. The friend wants to play online. According to some, this would mean that the server numbers stays the same, but hang on. Wouldn't the server have to collect new data from the new person? The person can't just magically fill a space, can he? And the previous person's information is still in the system, so there are now two server spots instead of one.

This could be a completely stupid question straight from my ass, but it's got me wondering. If what I'm asking is correct, then the developers are still paying for extra servers that they aren't getting compensated to keep up.

 

[Epona]

I love all the outrage people have over such a simple business concept. And then they act shocked, like the pass is so new and not part of every game that is coming out. I rarely buy used, so this works for me. I'm not a cheap-ass, so 10 dollars isn't a big deal. 10 dollars for dozens of hours of online play. OUTRAGEOUS!

Also, it is a video game. People need to calm down. 10 dollars is small change. It is not like Nissan is charging me an extra thousand dollars to put a rearview mirror in my car. That would be outrageous. Hell, if you buy the game new, you don't even have to worry about paying the extra 10 dollars. So instead of whining and crying, just buy it new. Then you have no reason to whine. If you buy it used... well, that sounds like your own fault.

I love it when people tell us what we shouldn't care about and what isn't a big deal.

I am not willing to cross this line just so they can feel justified in being even more greedy for the next line.

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

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

Damn straight!

Mind you EA seem to be doing the same thing with Mass Effect 3, as if so many people were screaming for multi-player in what was always a single player series. It's like developers these days are trying to dictate the trend, rather than the other way around.

 

[chadachada123]

snip

I can back it up with 110 people who play games professinally, and are paid for their honest and objective viewpoints. You can't back your opinion up with anyone. Then lets look at the fan polls which name Uncharted 2 the best game ever on a Playstation console, beating out GTA Vice City, Skyrim, Half Life 2 and Metal Gear Solid.

And you keep using that lack of replay thing as some sort of fact. It is your anecdotal evidence, and ONLY your anecdotal evidence. You cannot do a single thing to give me a link between replay value and trade ins outside of you doing it.

It DOESN'T MATTER how good a game is, is what I'm trying to say. The game could be freaking awesome, but if it has little replay value, then it is going to be returned by many people.

On top of this, the only other reasons to return a game (REGARDLESS OF HOW GOOD IT IS ACCORDING TO THE AVERAGE VOTER ON WHATEVER SITE YOU ARE QUOTING) are that you did not like it (might not be your type of game) or that it was a crappy game. There is the emergency-money issue, but otherwise, returning a game is only done because it is no longer played (little replay value), is not a game-type that is fun to the user, or is not a fun game in general (but these latter two can be lumped into one category, for this discussion).

We have X sales for a game. For this game, let's say that it's ZOMG THE BEST GAME EVA. Even then, there is going to be a HUGE percentage of gamers that won't like it simply because it isn't very fun to them. Let's say 20%. 80% will keep their game, assuming the only people that return it just aren't interested. However, after several weeks, people start returning them. Let's say 30% are returned after a few months, meaning 50% were returned, or .5X. The only logical explanation, eliminating emergency factors, is that it just doesn't have much replay value. However, say we have Y sales for a different game. This game appeals to a niche, but isn't exactly a splash, but has enough replay value for the vast majority to not sell it. Let's say 40% return it from not being interested, and 10% from replay value. That means that 50% of it, or .5Y, was returned.

Now, looking at the percentages, it'd seem that game Y has the same return value as game X, despite being rated lower. So, yes, returns are not the sole determinant of the replay value of a game, because there is a chance that people will return the game just because it isn't their type of game. You seem to dislike admitting, however, that there is a HUGE portion of the gaming community that simply does not like Uncharted because it isn't their thing, no matter what reviewers or the "majority" think. On top of this, game Y had huge replay value, just smaller interest, while AAA title X was loved by all but simply not fun to play over time.

Finally, I'm curious as to where you got your "Uncharted 2 > all" quote, but also find it fairly useless since I'm not a Playstation gamer. Besides, if only 30% of gamers on that site voted for Uncharted 2, then that still leaves 70% possibly returning it because it just isn't their thing.

Basically, the point is that we have to look at how many games are sold and how many returns are done, and also the percentage satisfaction with the game, to get an idea of the replay value. If 90% of gamers love this game but still have a ton of returns,[bold] then CLEARLY the game has low replay value. [/bold]

You seem to be saying that there cannot be any correlation, let alone causation, between returns and replay value of a game, and are completely rejecting the notion of gameplay being NOT correlated with replay value.

 

[chadachada123]

I have a legitimate question about servers that is probably a dumb question for you tech savvy server nerds, and possibly straight out of my ass;

Does buying one copy of the game, and then trading it with other people, really only give one server spot?

See, here's what I'm thinking. The person that bought the game new, online pass n' all, purchases one server spot for the multiplayer. Okay, whatever. The system takes the console's information, the person's account info, all that good stuff.

Now the person gives it off to a friend. The friend wants to play online. According to some, this would mean that the server numbers stays the same, but hang on. Wouldn't the server have to collect new data from the new person? The person can't just magically fill a space, can he? And the previous person's information is still in the system, so there are now two server spots instead of one.

This could be a completely stupid question straight from my ass, but it's got me wondering. If what I'm asking is correct, then the developers are still paying for extra servers that they aren't getting compensated to keep up.

It essentially takes up no new space because the data stored (should) only take(s) up a floppy-disc's worth of space. It (should be) next to nothing. Cents of space.

 

[Jumplion]

I have a legitimate question about servers that is probably a dumb question for you tech savvy server nerds, and possibly straight out of my ass;

Does buying one copy of the game, and then trading it with other people, really only give one server spot?

See, here's what I'm thinking. The person that bought the game new, online pass n' all, purchases one server spot for the multiplayer. Okay, whatever. The system takes the console's information, the person's account info, all that good stuff.

Now the person gives it off to a friend. The friend wants to play online. According to some, this would mean that the server numbers stays the same, but hang on. Wouldn't the server have to collect new data from the new person? The person can't just magically fill a space, can he? And the previous person's information is still in the system, so there are now two server spots instead of one.

This could be a completely stupid question straight from my ass, but it's got me wondering. If what I'm asking is correct, then the developers are still paying for extra servers that they aren't getting compensated to keep up.

It essentially takes up no new space because the data stored (should) only take(s) up a floppy-disc's worth of space. It (should be) next to nothing. Cents of space.

It still requires an extra server space, no? If that's the case, then the argument that "Only one space is being used!" is moot no matter how small the subsequent spaces are (again, if what I'm asking is true).

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

When in any of this have publishers been worried about telling the truth? Being honest is probably the biggest mistake they could make when it comes to their campaign.