Sony Erects Online Pass Barrier Around Uncharted 3 Multiplayer

[Baresark]

snip

snip

snip

snip

You just compared a ten dollar online pass to dumping chemicals in the river. What insane troll logic is this?

Yes, Sony have to earn our money. They are doing this by making an awesome game, then charging you $60 for that. If you pay that money, you get this with the online pass free. Sony are very good to their customers.

People who buy the game secondhand, and people who pirate the game, however, are not Sony's customers by any remote definition. They are either thieves, or the customers of Gamestop. They do not give Sony any money, and so Sony really have no reason whatsoever to not treat them with anything but contempt.

Meanwhile, for Sony's customers, absolutely nothing has changed, and they're getting awesome games for the same price they always have.

Do you go out of your way to be abrasive? It's comparing like situations. You don't make excuses for other companies to do shitty things to their customers, that is my point. It's not troll logic, as you put it. You are the one trolling. You are sitting there championing a company that makes fantastic profits, even with all the second hand sales. And when a gamer mentions they aren't happy with something, you jump on them, raving about how Sony "NEEDS TO MAKE MONEY". Also, piracy entering the conversation is not a valid point. Pirates have not been able to play online, regardless of there being no passes. There have been a few situation where they were able to, but that lasted a few hours each time before Sony fixed it so they couldn't. As they should do.

People will always seek out that which they want and avoid that which they don't want. If they don't want to pay $60 for a game and the market offers them an alternative, then they have every right to take that alternative. And they are still Sony's customers because they at very least sell a software license, which is, in most situation, transferable. It's not a lost sale, it's just not a new sale. I almost never agree with the Jimquisition, but he made a fantastic point about about online slots. If you give your slot away, you are not using it, and someone else is, so why do they need a pass to pay for it.

Sony has every right to seek out maximum profit potential, but they do not have a right to do it at the expense of customers. Also, as so many people have pointed out, if something is pirated, or in this case, purchased second hand, that isn't a lost sale. Just because they were willing to spend money on it at a reduced cost, that doesn't mean they would buy a new copy if the alternative didn't exist. By the time the price drops naturally, most people and the company have long since stopped caring about it.

 

[rohansoldier]

I was going to say that I don't have a problem with charging for online passes (only that I feel us gamers are the wrong people to charge), but to hell with that, because I actually do.

I know that buying a game new grants you access to all its features, but not all of us can afford to dump £40+ into every game we want to play. I am of the belief that buying a game entitles me to access all its features, online or otherwise, regardless of how much I pay for it.

Wanna make some more money out of preowned sales sony/thq/whoever? Fine, tell those penny pinching s***s in the retailers they have to pay you a percentage of every one of the used games of yours they sell! That should make them take notice and might even reduce the pre owned market in the process, which you clearly want.

 

[ASnogarD]

It seems I'm in the minority of agreeing with what they are doing here.
I think the online pass is actually a good idea. Good on them for getting something from pre-owned sales.

I have used it with many EA games, and have no problems with it.

Although I think Homefront did it best.
Even if you bought it pre-owned, you could still play the MP, just not level up beyond rank 5.

The real solution is actually to stop making generic forgetable games, and make good games players wont want to sell on.
The issue here is that the big publishers just spam out lots of generic forgetable, not much reply factor games to max out profits... and so when the buyer finishes or gets bored of a generic title they use it to get a discount on the next generic title.

I dont hand in titles I actually enjoyed, hell no... I go back to old titles I had fun with and play again, and again... only boring generic titles go back to the store.

And you're definitely everyone. Only generic boring titles get traded in which is why GameStop always has used copies of Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. Demon's Souls. The Uncharted games. And a lot of other triple A, well liked by reviewer and gamer alike games.

Because people only trade in generic and forgettable games.

I still have no problem with this. As I've said I don't even know how many times on these forums, used games are usually $5 less than the new copy for a good number of months after it's released.

And in that time you can find the game on sale new somewhere, for cheaper.

The games you mentioned have sold a lot of copies to first time buyers, and yes a few of those buyers returned the game ( not everyone like the Mass Effect series...I got both and have a hard time trying to get into them ), so it seems a lot of used copies of those games are around but if you were able to check the percentages I would be willing to bet the percentage of returned copies of good games is much lower than the percentage of a generic title...its just the good title moved a lot more copies.

I still think that if a game was memorable and provided a gamer with a lot of fun memories, that game would most likely hang on to thier copy rather than see it as a discount for the next game. I still have my copy of FFVII PS1 ( not the PS 1, sadly it died ), and my copy of Half Life 1 PC... amongst other titles.
I am willing to believe I am not unique in holding onto games that I enjoyed a lot.

 

[Roganzar]

Erect, he he.

So I won't be playing the Multiplayer, since I'm getting 3 through Gamefly.
Maybe if publishers stopped overcharging for games then this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Von Strimmer]

At first they came for the PC gamers... And I did not speak up.
Then they came for the Ps3 gamers... And I did not speak up.
Now they will be coming for the Xbox 360 Gamers... And I remembered the 360 didn't have any more first party games to give.

O/T Buy direct from Sony and you will be treated right by them (you know if you have the money to spend); buy second hand and you will be treated with contempt (yet you will still save money). It will still turn out cheaper to buy second hand. Just make gamestop take 10 dollars off the price of the game since they aren't selling you the whole thing

 

[Lucane]

Huh... Well I'd say everyone's at fault for that being the way it is right now

Not really, I think its mainly the retailers fault. Unless you count it as the customers fault for not doing something about it.

That's exactly what I meant.

 

[Antari]

Yes thats it Sony. Adding restrictions will solve all the problems in the world! ... If these morons didn't have the kind of money they do, they wouldn't even attempt something like this. But as it stands they have a fresh supply of new customers being born every month so they don't need to care about anyone but themselves.

 

[Dastardly]

Sony Erects Online Pass Barrier Around Uncharted 3 Multiplayer
Permalink

I remain of two minds about this.

I find it to be sensible, and I see it as within the rights and reason of a publisher to do this. You're ensuring that a new product has more value than a used product, so that you're not later forced to compete with your own product on price alone (which is impossible). Creating artificial depreciation, in a sense, is a "necessary evil" in a world in which software can be resold.

That said, it's only half of a solution. The other half? Lowering the price on new games. If that means making games smaller/shorter and releasing them in installments at $30 each, go for it (Though I think Valve has killed the perceived viability of that model). If it means just plain lowering the price, do it.

Anti-piracy measures, DRM, online passes, used-sale-loss-recuperation techniques, all of that stuff... it's not that it doesn't make sense. It does! People disagree on certain methods, sure, and they may not like all of them, but no one can come up with a reasoned argument why these things don't make sense from a business standpoint. That doesn't seem to be the problem among the clear-thinking consumers. We understand that a little inconvenience can add a lot of safety to a product, which keeps the market viable for experimentation and expansion -- just like the "inconvenience" of fumbling with a key at my front door is offset by the safety of knowing all my stuff will still be in there.

It's just that at $60, those little inconveniences all sting a bit more. If a $1 DVD doesn't play, I shrug, maybe swear a little, and throw it away. If a $20 DVD doesn't play, I fume, swear a fair bit more, and demand a refund. Same inconvenience, but it stings more because of the price tag.

Publishers can come back to $45 and not see the world end. Lower prices may even mean more new sales -- and the free-to-play market has already proven that game consumers are willing to get involved in humongous numbers at a lower price threshold, so this could mean higher profits, not just a break-even with the current model.

(And, for that matter, Gamestop can lower the price on used games $10 and not even bat an eye. They could work out a deal in which they can buy these online passes and sell them in the used game boxes. Whatever. They're a non-factor in this.)

 

[geizr]

If the barrier is simply a pay wall to ensure that those who pirated the game(i.e. didn't pay for it) don't have access to a substantial part of the game, then why charge $10? Seem like just $1 or fifty cents would do the trick just fine(remember piracy only has three reasons: lazy, cheap, and a douchebag). Also, what's to stop the pirate from just paying the $10 for the code and getting full access to the game? He still comes out far ahead of anyone who paid full price or even bought the game used, because he only paid $10 total while everyone else is paying $60-$70 total(Gamestop is not much of a discount considering they would sell the game for no more than $5 off the new price).

The other question is whether the multiplayer is really that substantial or valued-added compared to the single-player. From what I've been hearing of most games that try this, the multiplayer is a bolted-on after-thought, adding little to the experience of the game. In some cases, it's been deleterious to the overall game experience. So, are the pirates really losing out by not paying to get multiplayer and just sticking with enjoying the single-player? What is there compelling to the multi-player that makes it the better experience such it is the real reason to buy the game, making the pay-wall actual be effectual, rather than it being overshadowed by the single-player experience or passed over entirely by the vast majority of gamers? If there is no true reason to buy the multi-player, then this whole scheme will just be a bogus money grab that will only serve to cost more money in managing it than is made from it(or at least it would, if gamers weren't such un-self-disciplined addicts who are easily suckered out of their money cause they can't go two shits without a game to play).

What if gamers simply decide they've had enough and just stop buying games from these companies altogether(given history, there seems little chance of this, and the publishers know it)? Gamers just decide to find other interests or focus on games that don't pull this BS. These companies would fold. They need and want your money more than you do. So, I think the reality is that gamers, as paying customers, actually have the real power; they just fail to exercise it properly, preferring, instead, to merely complain, bitterly, while still giving away their money to the same companies hurting them. You don't want, don't buy it. Don't pirate it, either, but just don't buy it.

 

[TheDooD]

It seems I'm in the minority of agreeing with what they are doing here.
I think the online pass is actually a good idea. Good on them for getting something from pre-owned sales.

I have used it with many EA games, and have no problems with it.

Although I think Homefront did it best.
Even if you bought it pre-owned, you could still play the MP, just not level up beyond rank 5.

The real solution is actually to stop making generic forgetable games, and make good games players wont want to sell on.
The issue here is that the big publishers just spam out lots of generic forgetable, not much reply factor games to max out profits... and so when the buyer finishes or gets bored of a generic title they use it to get a discount on the next generic title.

I dont hand in titles I actually enjoyed, hell no... I go back to old titles I had fun with and play again, and again... only boring generic titles go back to the store.

I agree with ya and ironically EA is the biggest problem with games that have almost no replay value. Dead Space after you beat it you'll play a new game plus once or twice but that's about it. All the sports games overall die off except for the most hardcore players. NFS is the biggest problem, majority of the games get old fast. I haven't beat a NFS game in years because I get bored when it comes down to end game and the piss poor rubberband AI. Upcoming Syndicate is gonna suffer this because EA doesn't care about keeping a game alive they just want that first hit and after that they want you to buy their newest game.

 

[Baresark]

Oh look. The market doesn't allow that alternative anymore. Looks like the market has changed and now people who buy secondhand have to pay a $10 surcharge. I guess you see absolutely nothing wrong with this then, because otherwise that would just be a double standard.


Also, learn to read about who is their customer. It is incredibly simple - Sony's customers aren't being inconvenienced. The people who buy secondhand are not Sony's customers.

And how do you think "they wouldn't have bought the game anyway" is in any way, shape of form an argument against this? If they never would have bought it to begin with, then why should Sony care what they think? In fact, the online pass then becomes the only way they would get them to pay at all, so thats more reason to do it.

And I see you're sticking to the insane troll logic of how violating the federal regulations against dumping hazardous waste is exactly the same as making secondhand gamers actually pay something to Sony for the game.

The market sure does still allow for alternatives. Companies like Sony do not determine the market, so there is something wrong with it. Market forces are there to meet consumer demand. Learn a thing or two before speaking so freely of concepts you clearly do not understand. My point is, as it has been from the beginning, people are allowed to not like this, and they are allowed to not support it. By your logic, people who buy Sony games are not even their customers, they simply give them money to use software for an indeterminate amount of time. If you buy PC with a copy of Windows on it, the Windows license reverts from the stores ownership to the customers ownership. Then you are purchasing the license to use it. If you stop using that copy of Windows and give your license to someone else, they are still Microsoft's customers. Why? Because you passed your license on to them and the license has still been paid for. By your twisted logic, the only way to obtain a license for software you want to you use is if you pay for it. So, if you follow this flawed logic, no one is allowed to gift software to anyone because that is, by your account, money that the company has earned.

You're the troll, and you clearly don't understand even the most basic logical arguments. In the words of Thomas Sowell, "things are alike in all ways except for the ways they are not, and things that are not alike are not alike in all ways except for the ways that they are." Basically, you can stretch any analogy to either be as alike, or not as alike as you want it to be. You are emphasizing the ways they are not alike and ignoring the ways they are. Stop trolling.

Sony is doing this because they believe that used sales are lost sales. So, it is an argument. They do it because they feel entitled to money that they are not entitled to. Why are they not entitled to that money? Simply put, they didn't earn it by being competitive in the market.

 

[jajujo]

The massive problem I have with this online pass thing is that it still fucks over customers who pay for the game new.
For example, I can't remember where I read it but I think it was OXM, a Dad bought FIFA 11, and entered the online code on his account, great he can play online no issues for him.
However he had two kids who both played Xbox with seperate gamertags and according to the Dad loved playing FIFA online, but they couldn't, he was told he had to buy another 2 online passes so his kids could play the game when he already bought it brand new.

Thats why this system is beyond retarded.

Isn't this the kind of situation this whole code system was designed for? If they all used the same account it's a non issue, but saying that it's messed that you can't use 1-server slot for 3 seperate accounts worth of data, even if they're not being used at the same time, seems kind of messed up itself. Kind of like buying 1 full dinner for yourself, then expecting 2 other people who get your leftovers to get the full meal experience, while at any time you'd still be able to eat those leftovers yourself...

Your data is on that server until they bring it down. Your "entry fee" pays to maintain your data on that server. I do agree that you should be able to remove your data and be able to pass the "space" on to someone else when you're done with the game, but to be trying to use one space for 1 of 3 different accounts at the same time just sounds wrong.

Anyway, do people really need more reasons to not really support Sony?

Yeah... This problem is unique to Sony... /sarcasm

Why does one part of this whole situation always seem to be forgotten? Some people who buy used don't care about the online in the first place. Hell, I buy everything new and I usually still don't care about the online.