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

[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.

 

[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.

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).

With one copy of the game, some space will be used for multiplayer ("space" in this case being bandwidth, stuff that is only used when this copy is specifically online) and some space being used for storing data ("space" in this case being bytes of data). The main argument here is that when the game copy changes hands, the original owner is no longer using any "space" (that is, bandwidth), as that type of space costs significantly more than the other kind (which is just a few (kilo)bytes, saving just your rank and gamertag and some other trivial stuff like
KD-ratio).

*Edit* To answer your question, the only extra space used when the game changes into new hands is the small amount of storage on their servers, which simply marks "this gamertag has played online, here's his rank and stats." It does not cost the developers much money (or, really, any money, since the developers very likely already had the server space, space that would otherwise be empty).

 

[DustyDrB]

Errr...for someone who bought the game used to be able to play it, someone else had to sell the game. That means you have one more person and one less who would be online. So...I'm not seeing how used sales put a strain on servers. So...

I wish companies would just come out and say, "We want money for every sale of our game, new or used". I'd respect their honesty, at least.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Snip

Way to take offense to something that wasn't offensive guy. If you found it offensive, apparently it applied to you and you took exception.

While you're citing reality, I will too, Gamestop will for the most part sell used games for $5 less within a good few months of the game being released than a new copy.

Meanwhile, it's gone on sale at multiple locations in that time frame, where not only are you saving more money, but you're still giving money to the developer.

Fine, buy used, but don't ***** about Online Pass like it's ruining your life, because you're buying used to save money. If you're that strapped for cash, but too lazy to look for things that are on sale, there might be a reason you're that strapped for cash.

 

[Frostbite3789]

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.

Did you read past the first line? No? Because if you're buying a game used while it's still $60 new, you probably didn't actually shop around for the best deal.

I have no need to justify paying $60 for a game, because I usually don't. I have patience.

 

[DracoSuave]

Snip

Way to take offense to something that wasn't offensive guy. If you found it offensive, apparently it applied to you and you took exception.

While you're citing reality, I will too, Gamestop will for the most part sell used games for $5 less within a good few months of the game being released than a new copy.

Meanwhile, it's gone on sale at multiple locations in that time frame, where not only are you saving more money, but you're still giving money to the developer.

Fine, buy used, but don't ***** about Online Pass like it's ruining your life, because you're buying used to save money. If you're that strapped for cash, but too lazy to look for things that are on sale, there might be a reason you're that strapped for cash.

It also screws over the new buyer. In a very subtle way, but you're getting screwed by it more than the used buyer.

See, as a new purchaser you are buying a product, but stripped from that product is a 'service contract' that is also included with that purchase. In law, you are allowed to sell contracts. The lending industry -thrives- on this. But more importantly, it means that game companies are allowed to sell their property, and thus any server obligations (and DLC opportunities) as well. However, online passes strip YOU of the same rights they enjoy. You cannot sell your end of the agreement, while they absolutely can.

Thusly, they are creating an artificial devaluation of their product after the point of sale. They are actively sabotaging your rights as a new game buyer just to line their pockets with someone else's lucre. They are attacking paying customers, to spite used game buyers.

Moreover, the argument 'they need to fund the multiplayer development, not the server costs' implies that the sales are not covering their costs.

That means that they have projected to not make thier costs back with the sale of their product.

That means they're business model is fucking stupid, and they never should have taken on the cost of multiplayer to begin with.

No rational person can see how 'We screwed up and went over budget' gives carteblanche to then say 'So you need to give up some rights as a new purchaser.' And if 'we went over budget' is NOT true then their stated reason for 'we need to devalue the product' is false.

Did you read past the first line? No? Because if you're buying a game used while it's still $60 new, you probably didn't actually shop around for the best deal.

I have no need to justify paying $60 for a game, because I usually don't. I have patience.

No one cares about your patience, but seriously? "If you saved money on the purchase of a game you didn't actually shop around?" That's probably the biggest bit of nonsense thing I've read all day, and I've been reading Lewis Carrol.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Did you read past the first line? No? Because if you're buying a game used while it's still $60 new, you probably didn't actually shop around for the best deal.

I have no need to justify paying $60 for a game, because I usually don't. I have patience.

Ok im a little confused here. How is shopping around and getting a game for $10-20 cheaper then the new price not looking around for the best deal? Sure I could wait a year for it to drop even more but thats not looking around for the best deal.

I'll use this as an example then.

http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-360/games/dead-island/93156

I got the PC version at Best Buy for $30 new. The PS3 and 360 versions were $40. But yeah, you totally get the best deal if you buy it used. Because Best Buy put it on sale for a week. Cheaper than the used price.

Edit: First new game I searched, I immediately found a deal better than buying it used. I just decided to test out Gears 3. And I didn't even have to find some obscure place. Flippin' Target.

http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-360/games/gears-of-war-3/77663

http://www.target.com/p/Gears-of-War-III-XBOX-360/-/A-13426636

 

[gavinstaceyvg]

This is just an ill thought out idea so please feel free to shoot it down but why aren't games companies just putting advertising in online multiplayer to cover running costs. For example an FPS set in a city environment could have billboards with product adverts that oculd easily be changed when a company bought a new contract with the game company. Even small environmental props like litter could be textured to look like a real life company's product.