Sony Erects Online Pass Barrier Around Uncharted 3 Multiplayer

[MajorDolphin]

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.

..because everyone finds the exact same titles fun and entertaining... /sarcasm

 

[MajorDolphin]

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.

Great post.

I honestly 100% believe this is more about gamesharing than traditional piracy or even used game sales. Unless SONY has changed its policy recently, a game could be shared to 3-4 other consoles and each copy could be played online as well. So they're losing 180-240 dollars on each digital download. I've known people to abuse this system and I guarantee people are still abusing this system.

Big corporations don't pull this kind of crap without doing studies. They know exactly what they can get away with and what percentage of users they're going to drive away. They're willing to sacrifice some of us so the "SONY HAZ TO GET CHEEZBERGZ" crowd will continue to pay out the ass.

I also wonder about the intentions of those who support the corporate cash grab. Perhaps some of these posters should be honest with with us, and themselves, and admit they've been gamesharing for years and they've come to terms with paying 10 dollars for a brand new game. Because "you know scrow, SONY has to make money. Why come no tattoo?!"

 

[irishda]

If you buy the game used because you can't afford the 60 dollar price, odds are it will be at a far lower cost than that 60 bucks. Therefore, you are buying it at a much later date (6 months lets say). At this later date, the multiplayer will be in one of two states. A) It will be fun and well-populated, and therefore should be worth the price of $10. OR B) The multiplayer will be sparesly populated, no fun, and therefore doesn't warrant the $10 to unlock it. Now, remember, this $10 is entirely voluntary. If the multiplayer is no good, you need not pay it. Also, since Uncharted has an incredibly fun single-player campaign, it's not such a big deal if you don't play the multiplayer. However, if you feel cheated because you bought a game for $20 and you now have to shell out another 10, just remember, it is ten freaking dollars for essentially doubling the playing time of a game. If you cannot afford the price of a decent meal+a beer, then please stop wasting your money.

I swear this self-entitlement issue gamers have is my greatest pet peeve. "These greedy corporations want an entirely voluntary 10 dollars for me even though I got this game completely free from my friend?" Yes, believe it or not, companies would like to make some money from the massive amounts they lose to used sales. I can't think of a single successful company that would say "We're losing money? Well we better just keep on losing it, because people need that ten dollars to go see a movie." In order to stave off a company from failing in an industry with such a high turnover rate among companies, yes I will gladly pay ten dollars.

TL;DR: Stop whining and pay the 10 dollars if you want to play multi-player on a used game. Even with it, you probably still pay less than 60 dollars.

 

[MajorDolphin]

If you buy the game used because you can't afford the 60 dollar price, odds are it will be at a far lower cost than that 60 bucks. Therefore, you are buying it at a much later date (6 months lets say). At this later date, the multiplayer will be in one of two states. A) It will be fun and well-populated, and therefore should be worth the price of $10. OR B) The multiplayer will be sparesly populated, no fun, and therefore doesn't warrant the $10 to unlock it. Now, remember, this $10 is entirely voluntary. If the multiplayer is no good, you need not pay it. Also, since Uncharted has an incredibly fun single-player campaign, it's not such a big deal if you don't play the multiplayer. However, if you feel cheated because you bought a game for $20 and you now have to shell out another 10, just remember, it is ten freaking dollars for essentially doubling the playing time of a game. If you cannot afford the price of a decent meal+a beer, then please stop wasting your money.

I swear this self-entitlement issue gamers have is my greatest pet peeve. "These greedy corporations want an entirely voluntary 10 dollars for me even though I got this game completely free from my friend?" Yes, believe it or not, companies would like to make some money from the massive amounts they lose to used sales. I can't think of a single successful company that would say "We're losing money? Well we better just keep on losing it, because people need that ten dollars to go see a movie." In order to stave off a company from failing in an industry with such a high turnover rate among companies, yes I will gladly pay ten dollars.

TL;DR: Stop whining and pay the 10 dollars if you want to play multi-player on a used game. Even with it, you probably still pay less than 60 dollars.

That 10 dollars is a tax on new game buyers more than anyone.

I think that has been made clear by several other posters in this thread.

 

[stupiddrummer]

vote with your dollar. And hope that the publisher actually announced the online pass before hand (looking at you space marine, wouldn't have bought you otherwise >_<).

another problem with these barriers to entry is that they hurt the multiplayer in the long term. A game with an online pass could see a great online community when the game releases, but then the bandwagon buyers will stop playing or sell their game, while the core online community suffers as the population dwindles, with no resurgence through used sales/late adopters.

Also, i ended up trading my copy of space marine back in to the retailer for a new one because it was defective, so i ended up with two online passes . not that this could be exploited or anything.


aaand if i buy a game new i shouldn't have to bother with entering a code to play a portion of it i just paid for. This is an enormous inconvenience. As a loyal, full-price paying customer, i shouldn't have to be subject to a company's attempt to curb used sales.

 

[viranimus]

God so many times has it come up. So many ways I have said it, So I cant justify putting a lot of effort into it this time.

A: This has absolutely nothing to do with Piracy.

B: Even in wildly inflated estimates the Uncharted franchise thus far has proliferated less than 2000 illegitimate copies of the franchise. Or an estimated "loss" of 50k$ So is Sony really all that concerned with it knowing they loose more from actual theft than this.

C: The gaming industry is on par with Cell phone providers, Cable/sat companies as well as the movie industry that are among the most profitable industries in a severely weakened economy.

D: Lawyers and PR campaigns are expensive. Ignorant and gullible gamers willing to defend your outlandish, unethical and downright illegal ideas are free. All you have to do is to tell them what to think and they will gladly do the rest

E: Constantly giving more power to profitable corporations and defending their right to make money is exactly and unequivocally the root cause of why the economy is weakened (not specifically the gaming industry but industrial commerce as a whole, the gaming industry is just a part in a much greater sum)It is illogical and the very definition of anti competitive which is supposed to be a corner stone of the economy.

F: If these people were to have their way, it would put literally hundreds of thousands of people out of work. It would take the money distributed to the gaming Industry and ensure that same amount of money would be centralized to developers, and publishers. Make no mistake This is not about doing what is right for the artists. This is about corporations getting upset that they have to share with all the various subsidiary businesses that make up "the gaming industry"

 

[Zay-el]

Just buy the game brand new instead of been a tight shit saving 2 notes to get the secondhand edition

Sorry for being a 'tight shit', but I'm not buying heaps of brand new games in a country that prices MindJack at 85$(saw it today).

 

[Irridium]

So stupid, even for Sony.

Sony, pirated versions rarely ever have multiplayer. Pirates simply go without, and are just fine with doing that.

This will not do shit to stop piracy or get money out of pirates.

Also, what if me and my brother are splitting the cost for the game? Will one of us still need to pay to play online? Will we both be able to play online without paying?

Oh, right, you don't care. Forgot.

 

[Grospoliner]

I thought you couldnt pirate on a console, and that only the PC was a pirate ridden cesspool not fit to release titles onto ( at least not until the consoles got the first pop at the game )?

I find it amusing that the publishers will twist reality around to suit thier current needs, like oh we are protecting sale against piracy by delaying the PC version, now we are preventing PS 3 pirates by charging a fee to get the pass... would this mean later the PC will get first release on a multi platform title, and the consoles later to prevent those pirate ridden consoles from ruining sales ?

Its more sad though that pubilisher actually think they are fooling anyone with thier outlandish claims... nooo we are not trying to suck up even more of your cash, we are merely defending our sales, not trying to get a piece of the pre owned market, thats just a coincidence... really, honest.

..oh, better get the editor out, you are missing a 'have' in this sentence...
and that anyone who bought a pre-owned copy of the game would to pay the now-standard $10 fee

Mod chips. Though it is less of an issue now because the console owner can control the status of the machine via the internet and shut down modded consoles, which just means that pirates will run cheap versions of the console offline. No security is perfect and the whole paywall scheme is a racket designed to shaft players.

 

[4173]

snip

Edit: Also, Sony does not "deserve" money from second hand sales. I see this line repeated over and over again on this thread. As people are not entitled to software from a developer/publisher, the dev/pub is not entitled to money from anyone. As you said, they can just smash all the discs if they wanted. The product is theirs to do with as they see fit. But it's also wrong to tell people what they can do with it after they have bought it. Not legally wrong, but morals and laws have nothing in common.

In the end, I think it boils down to this; Whether or not one is willing to accept the online pass (or day 1 dlc, but that isn't exactly the same thing) as being a separate product from the game disc (or download).

In every case so far, even if I haven't been exactly thrilled about it, I've been willing to accept the conceit. With that in mind, I'm wary but not upset with the online pass not transferring with a used game. It is just the nature of that particular product (like an MMO subscription, or renting a movie)

If the two are fundamentally linked in a person's mind, I can see how it starts to become a moral issue. The company would seem to be overstepping there bounds, and breaking some inherent pact with the creation, sale and purchase of the game. As you say, the company would be attempting to block the sale of your property.

I guess it becomes a choice between a more literal view of what a game is, and a more conceptual view.

D: Lawyers and PR campaigns are expensive. Ignorant and gullible gamers willing to defend your outlandish, unethical and downright illegal ideas are free. All you have to do is to tell them what to think and they will gladly do the rest

E: Constantly giving more power to profitable corporations and defending their right to make money is exactly and unequivocally the root cause of why the economy is weakened (not specifically the gaming industry but industrial commerce as a whole, the gaming industry is just a part in a much greater sum)It is illogical and the very definition of anti competitive which is supposed to be a corner stone of the economy.

D: Genuinely curious (this is the first time I've seen that argument) what you think is illegal; is the company trying to steal part of your game?


E: How is it anti-competitive (granted, if they are doing something illegal it could be)? The company puts out a product that competes with other products, then the market decides between freedom or big budget perks (or both, or neither).

 

[sivlin]

I'm unsure how this is an issue at all. PC games have required keys as far as I can really remember. It is just a second check from the manufacturer that you do indeed own this game and you do have rights to play it.

I've never understood the point of used game sales anyways since they charge you like 7 dollars less than the game would be if you bought it new anyways. Now you have no reason to purchase it used . Alternatively, this may make game stop lower their price to compensate so their probably won't be any issue.

 

[Stalydan]

If you resent the extra ten dollars on top, why don't you just demand Gamestop lower the price?

Think about it - Sony are offering exactly what they've always offered - the single player and the multiplayer, all for $60. The person who's now selling you the inferior game is Gamestop - they're selling you the game without multiplayer. Therefore, why not demand they take out the price you have to pay for the multiplayer, since Gamestop aren't providing it? Pay the price for what you recieve.

The battle of preowned games is not between publishers and gamers, its between publishers and retailers. Gamers need to stop taking retailers sides and letting them get away with providing an inferior product. The publishers have given you these amazing games over the years - the fuck have Gamestop given you apart endless hassles about a subscription to their magazine?

My personal opinion is that OR you can buy the game pre-owned but with the online pass included. If publishers are so anxious to put them into practice then they should supply the stores that sell pre-owned games (well the major retailers anyway) with new online passes in the printed form that's packaged with the new game anyway.

Though I don't agree with this system, the game's already been bought, the online space paid for by another person who later traded it in and now people who own the second hand copy are using that same space and now a different one. This doesn't affect the publisher in anyway for server space though this doesn't help that stores then try to hide some of the new copies of the games away or sell less in favour of putting out the pre-owned copies that they make full profit on.

 

[FoolKiller]

Okay. But how about Sony returns our backwards compatibility instead of selling us PS2 games on PSN.

If they want to make money that's fine, but then return what many people paid for in the first case. I call bullshit on Sony.

Uncharted didn't need multiplayer. I never played multiplayer in the second one and I won't this time around.

 

[Dr. Pepper Unlimited]

To stop pirates? Hilarious...

I'll just leave all the bickering in this thread alone and say: "Screw off, Sony. Screw you and your ridiculous online pass nonsense". Yeah, that will do nicely.

 

[Scytail]

Lets just hope this trend doesnt carry over into other areas. Clothing companies requiring 2nd hand stores to remove $10 worth of fabric from your shirt in order to make sure you can only buy your shirt brand new to get that other sleeve. So that Goodwill and other 2nd hand clothing stores will stop stealing all their profits. Tables and chairs will have their surfaces removed to insure that you cant use them for their intended function without buying them brand new.

New idea: Sony, EA, Activision, if you want to stop GameStop from selling used copies of your games, open your own stores.

 

[Eve Charm]

I can see a 3rd party company doing this under the saying "they aren't their customers if they buy used games" But unless something changed, you still have to be a sony customer owning a PS3.

Oh wait i bet that can be the next thing, $100 online passes for consoles if you buy one used or someone gives it to you.

 

[Unhappy Crow]

I don't have a problem with this. I purchased Uncharted 1 and 2 at full price. I'll do the same with this, even if I don't play as much online as I did with the second one. At least I'm showing my support to Sony and Naughty Dog.

 

[Pete Oddly]

I'm guessing it won't be long until online pass generators are made available over the Internet. It worked for CD key generators, I'm sure someone will figure this out too.

If not, Uncharted 3 will downgrade on my list from "Must buy" to "Borrow from friend until I beat the single player campaign, then never play it again".

 

[viranimus]

D: Genuinely curious (this is the first time I've seen that argument) what you think is illegal; is the company trying to steal part of your game?

Nope. Its not that I think that I am entitled like your implying. Sorry, your misinterpreting that phrase. It is meant to convey the notion that gullible people would gladly throw themselves under a bus to defend a corporation they like regardless of if it is Outlandish (IE: Online passes to "fight piracy, yet has no impact on piracy at all as it only effects used market") Unethical (Using a hack attempt as a marketing gimmick ) or Illegal(Attacking with litigation an individual for jailbreaking a PS3 even though legal precedent had already been established that Jailbreaking a device legally purchased was not illegal in the first place)(Or eliminating a desirable means of distribution so as to change the nature of the product in order to monopolize revenue generated from that profit.)

E: How is it anti-competitive (granted, if they are doing something illegal it could be)? The company puts out a product that competes with other products, then the market decides between freedom or big budget perks (or both, or neither).

It is anti competitive because these organizations such as Sony, Microsoft, Valve, EA, Activision, etc are cramming industry wide adoption of Digital distribution down everyones throats so as to eliminate completely legal and fair competition from physical aftermarket sales.
As it stands they must compete with a completely legal secondary sales market. The same retailers that gave them the vehicle to become as large of an industry as it has become and now that they do not wish to compete because of their sense of entitlement to your money.

What is worse is it uses consumer ignorance to allow the transition of games from being a product to being a subscription, so as all rights of ownership can be bypassed in favor of a license structure where consumers have no where near the same sort of legal protections they have as it relates to the sale and ownership of products. So not only is it anti competitive, it is a creating a precedent to perpetuate a detrimental element into an already weakened economy, and the easiest way to get people to swallow it, is when other consumers just like them ignorantly defend it.