PSN Store Problems Prevent PS3 Dirt 3 Multiplayer

[JDKJ]

There's an argument to be made that the second-hand buyer hasn't been "hurt." Technically, what they purchased second-hand was the game content, not the on-line access. The on-line access isn't an inseparable part of the game that moves with it from buyer to seller. That the second-hand buyers eventually have to pay for that access isn't a "hurt." It's simply them buying something they never bought in the first place.

This isn't about second-hand buyers. This is about the original purchasers being incapable of using a feature of the game they paid for because of a copy-control system put in place.

You're fudging the issue entirely.

But I wasn't the one who cast the issue as intended to screw second-hand purchasers.

 

[Korey Von Doom]

Doesn't really affect me much, since I'll just complete the singleplayer while I wait haha.

 

[erbkaiser]

Same difference. First-hand or second-hand, the argument still stands that neither buyer has bought on-line access. They've only bought game content. On-line access costs both an additional fee.

That is a really weird justification. If a game is advertised with online gameplay, of course this is part of the game. Locking this out because of issues with the service (PSN store down) or because of greed (Online Pass) is nonsense.
The only way to do this in an acceptable way (IMO) is to sell the game without multiplayer, and then sell a multiplayer addon as DLC. That way nobody is suckered into thinking they are buying a complete game when actually part of it is locked behind an extra paywall.

Of course then the game they actually sell will be singleplayer only, and this should reflect itself in a more robust singleplayer experience and possibly a lower price (e.g. ?10).

 

[Jumwa]

Same difference. First-hand or second-hand, the argument still stands that neither buyer has bought on-line access. They've only bought game content. On-line access costs both an additional fee.

Once again, that is entirely false. The original buyer HAS purchased online access, it comes in the box. They however can not use the feature they paid for because of these copy-control measures.

"DiRT 3 owners must redeem the in-box VIP pass to unlock competitive multiplayer..."

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/117/1170571p1.html?RSSwhen2011-05-25_035900&RSSid=1170571&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ignfeeds%2Fall+%28IGN+Complete%29

 

[JDKJ]

Same difference. First-hand or second-hand, the argument still stands that neither buyer has bought on-line access. They've only bought game content. On-line access costs both an additional fee.

Once again, that is entirely false. The original buyer HAS purchased online access, it comes in the box. They however can not use the feature they paid for because of these copy-control measures.

"DiRT 3 owners must redeem the in-box VIP pass to unlock competitive multiplayer..."

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/117/1170571p1.html?RSSwhen2011-05-25_035900&RSSid=1170571&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ignfeeds%2Fall+%28IGN+Complete%29

I edited my post.

 

[Jumwa]

That's just deflecting. The issue I set out in the beginning was that legitimate consumers were being hurt by copy-control. Nothing you've said has shown any refutation of my point.

 

[JDKJ]

Same difference. First-hand or second-hand, the argument still stands that neither buyer has bought on-line access. They've only bought game content. On-line access costs both an additional fee.

That is a really weird justification. If a game is advertised with online gameplay, of course this is part of the game. Locking this out because of issues with the service (PSN store down) or because of greed (Online Pass) is nonsense.
The only way to do this in an acceptable way (IMO) is to sell the game without multiplayer, and then sell a multiplayer addon as DLC. That way nobody is suckered into thinking they are buying a complete game when actually part of it is locked behind an extra paywall.

Of course then the game they actually sell will be singleplayer only, and this should reflect itself in a more robust singleplayer experience and possibly a lower price (e.g. ?10).

I took that back.

And I don't think it's fair to say that they're "locking it out" because PSN Store is down. It's because PSN Store is down that the value cannot be redeemed. And they claim it'll take longer to re-code it so as to remove the redemption requirement than it will take for PSN Store to be back up online.

 

[JDKJ]

That's just deflecting. The issue I set out in the beginning was that legitimate consumers were being hurt by copy-control. Nothing you've said has shown any refutation of my point.

How exactly are they being "hurt?" You never made that point clear.

 

[Jumwa]

How exactly are they being "hurt?" You never made that point clear.

If you don't consider not receiving a service you paid for being hurt, I've got some stuff I'm looking to unload, and I think you're just the person to buy.

 

[Lucane]

Ya know I just thought of this but... how people who do these things consider doing like free weekends or other various days off for anyone who doesn't have a code activated yet.

Like the 1st and 3rd weekend of any month, every Tuesday and Thursday or etc. the point is it would allow used/rental players a chance to play online or to boost online play on certain time periods like how Transformers:War for Cybertron has bonus exp weekend days.

 

[JDKJ]

How exactly are they being "hurt?" You never made that point clear.

If you don't consider not receiving a service you paid for being hurt, I've got some stuff I'm looking to unload, and I think you're just the person to buy.

But being unable to receive the service they've paid for isn't a product of the redemption requirement per se. That's got more to do with the PSN Store and less to do with the redemption requirement. That the service cannot be received is directly attributable to the fact that the point of redemption (i.e., the PSN Store) is experiencing technical difficulties and isn't taking redemptions at the moment. It's not attributable to the mere fact of the redemption requirement.

 

[Jumwa]

But being unable to receive the service they've paid for isn't a product of the redemption requirement per se. That's got more to with the the PSN Store and less to do with the redemption requirement. That the service cannot be received is directly attributable to the fact that the point of redemption (i.e., the PSN Store) is experiencing technical difficulties and isn't taking redemption at the moment. It's not attributable to the mere fact of the redemption requirement.

You are splitting hairs. And that also doesn't address your last issue. You're obviously just struggling to "win the argument" instead of just treating this discussion as a means to come to a better understanding of the issue. I'm not out to one-up you here, I am just here to discuss politely. : )

The fact is that this problem wouldn't exist without the copy-control measure. They put in place a system that makes the legitimate product more susceptible to failure. That was my point, and regardless of whether it was the PSN loss that caused it, or a meteorite hitting their own personal online pass redemption server, it remains true.

 

[JDKJ]

But being unable to receive the service they've paid for isn't a product of the redemption requirement per se. That's got more to with the the PSN Store and less to do with the redemption requirement. That the service cannot be received is directly attributable to the fact that the point of redemption (i.e., the PSN Store) is experiencing technical difficulties and isn't taking redemption at the moment. It's not attributable to the mere fact of the redemption requirement.

You are splitting hairs. And that also doesn't address your last issue. You're obviously just struggling to "win the argument" instead of just treating this discussion as a means to come to a better understanding of the issue. I'm not out to one-up you here, I am just here to discuss politely. : )

The fact is that this problem wouldn't exist without the copy-control measure. They put in place a system that makes the legitimate product more susceptible to failure. That was my point, and regardless of whether it was the PSN loss that caused it, or a meteorite hitting their own personal online pass redemption server, it remains true.

It's a hair that withstands splitting, if you ask me. Your argument is akin to saying that the online service Xbox Live per se "hurts" legitimate consumers because it's been taken off-line for maintenance in the wake of a cyber-attack with the result that subscribers cannot receive the value for which they paid. And that, if you ask me, is a ridiculous argument. It's not Xbox Live as a service that's "hurting" the consumer. It's the fact that it was taken off-line for maintenance that's "hurting" the consumer.

Of the two statements: "Online Pass cannot be redeemed because of Online Pass" and "Online Pass cannot be redeemed because PSN Store is off-line," the latter is true and the former is false.

If the PSN Store never goes off-line, then there's no problem with Online Pass. That it has gone off-line is the cause of the problem with Online Pass.

 

[Jumwa]

Of the two statements: "Online Pass cannot be redeemed because of Online Pass" and "Online Pass cannot be redeemed because PSN Store is off-line," the latter is true and the former is false.

But I agree with you there. Online pass cannot be redeemed because the PSN store is offline. However, that's a built-in problem with the Online Pass system, so it doesn't get an all-clear because of it. It's not comparable to your Xbox Live example, as Xbox Live is added value and features, it's not just an added barrier to play.

If they didn't tie the original consumers online play to an Online Pass, then this wouldn't be an issue, would it?

You can make the argument that the Online Pass system is justified to protect them from second hand sales, but to say that the system hasn't caused problems for legitimate purchasers of the original product is absurd.

 

[JDKJ]

Of the two statements: "Online Pass cannot be redeemed because of Online Pass" and "Online Pass cannot be redeemed because PSN Store is off-line," the latter is true and the former is false.

But I agree with you there. Online pass cannot be redeemed because the PSN store is offline. However, that's a built-in problem with the Online Pass system, so it doesn't get an all-clear because of it. It's not comparable to your Xbox Live example, as Xbox Live is added value and features, it's not just an added barrier to play.

If they didn't tie the original consumers online play to an Online Pass, then this wouldn't be an issue, would it?

You can make the argument that the Online Pass system is justified to protect them from second hand sales, but to say that the system hasn't caused problems for legitimate purchasers of the original product is absurd.

Clearly the system of requiring redemption at the PSN Store prior to being granted online access has failed. Redemption is impossible at the moment. But my point is that the particular aspect of the system which has failed isn't the redemption requirement. It's the point of redemption (i.e., PSN Store). If it was a perfect world and PSN Store never experienced downtime and therefore consumers could always make redemption, then, technically, there wouldn't be a thing wrong with the redemption requirement, would there?

 

[Yossarian1507]

I cannot play Mortal Kombat online for the same reason (and I already used my free trial). Damn online passes. Once again, the desire for more bucks ended up hurting normal gamers...

 

[Jumwa]

Clearly the system of requiring redemption at the PSN Store prior to being granted online access has failed. Redemption is impossible at the moment. But my point is that the particular aspect of the system which has failed isn't the redemption requirement. It's the point of redemption (i.e., PSN Store). If it was a perfect world and PSN Store never experienced downtime and therefore consumers could always make redemption, then, technically, there wouldn't be a thing wrong with the redemption requirement, would there?

That's a meaningless statement because nothing is perfect, and planning for imperfect systems is something we all must contend with. All human made systems will invariably fail given time, as shown by this case.

The Online Pass system is just adding another layer of complication, and increasing the chance of failure for the legitimate consumer product in the name of stopping second hand sales. As I said, argue that you think that's fair all you like, but arguing that it's not hurting legitimate consumers is absurd, as that's the blatant fact of the matter before us.

 

[-Samurai-]

I still can't get my DLC for L.A. Noire, and my friend can't activate his online pass for Mortal Kombat.

I think we'll start to see more developers taking care of their own DLC and online passes, like the way Smackdown Vs Raw handles theirs. When you go to the online store in the game, it lists all the available DLC from there, and most of it isn't available in the Playstation Store.

 

[RoyalWelsh]

While this is a little annoying, at least I can complete the single player aspects of the game first without being lured into the awesome (probably) multiplayer.