Sony Erects Online Pass Barrier Around Uncharted 3 Multiplayer

[Waaghpowa]

Steam > PSN/XBox Live

I have never had problems with discs being damaged.

"Shit happens"

I personally have had issues with discs because I have a self entitled brother who has stolen discs to feed a drug habit.

 

[Epona]

Steam > PSN/XBox Live

I have never had problems with discs being damaged.

"Shit happens"

I personally have had issues with discs because I have a self entitled brother who has stolen discs to feed a drug habit.

You should have a brother with a black eye then...just kidding.

 

[Strazdas]

im officialy sick of those "protections" now. firned of mine had a far cry 2 copy. apeprently it only allows 3 instalations. so beign venturer he was he always get soem sort of virus on his computer. two days ago we reformatted his computer to clean it all and what we see is far cry 2 disc saying "sorry but your out of tries, it will no longer install the game". so esentially, the disc is useless. yay.


as for pirating - most pirating happens on eggsbox. because blue ray discs are much more expensive. and they should stop complaining about second hand sales, because they cant do anything about that, and if they try they are idiots.

 

[The_Fezz]

I've pre-ordered the 100 quid special edition for Uncharted, isn't that proof enough that I won't be trading this one in?

 

[rapidoud]

I'd like to remind you the norm in Australia is $80+ for games when the conversion rate would make it about $54 at $60USD.

So you guys don't really have much to complain about.

 

[bakan]

So pirates just have to stump up $10 to get the multi-player option added to their pirated game, whereas used buyers pay for the used game then have to add on $10. So used buyers are worse off than pirates. Well no incentive to pirate there then.

That is unless this has nothing to do with piracy and they are using that as a smoke screen to kill off the used game market. A market every other industry has to accept. Just so we all understand what is going on then.....

Pirates can't even play online...

It is just to generate more profit and tackle used game sales.

Btw you also have to buy online passes if you use more than one gamertag per console, e.g. if other familiy members also play with your console.

 

[Supertegwyn]

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.

I completely agree. If you buy a brand new game for $20 used, you can't argue with having to pay a $10 fee for the multiplayer. And who buys used anyway? What with Ozgameshop.com and other retailers, games are dirt cheap.

 

[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).

buy them when the prices drop of the new games then, don't act like its you HAVE to buy every game ever released.

Did I say that? No, I was merely giving an example why I don't even buy many new games, regardless how much I'd like to try them out. And I probably would wait, too, if the prices weren't adjusted by bags of crazies here. Halo Wars is still out for 60$, make sense of that.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Idiots.

If pirates want something, THEY CAN FUCKING GET IT! All Sony is doing is trying to add to their massive money pile by screwing people for an extra ten bucks.

I just hope this trend dies out soon...

 

[poleboy]

Sony, please explain to me the connection between piracy and multiplayer gaming, because I just don't see it. All I see is you raking in an extra $10 on every pre-owned sale of Uncharted 3.

Music and movies have been sold second-hand for decades without producers enforcing extra fees on customers beyond the first. What gives you the right? And more importantly, is this going to carry over to your movie and music businesses? If not, I'd dare say you are a big fat hypocrite.

 

[bue519]

You not only failed in that, you failed to actually post anything of value. Sorry, if I'm poking fun your comment... again. Ba Dum Tish!
All I'm trying to point out is the absurdity of people moaning about this, but no one has a problem with paying $60 a year to fully enjoy their game. But, that's probably just the PC gamer in me used to getting that for free.

Ok fine, you want an argument?

$60 a year?... No subscriptions
$60 a year?... EVERY server is a dedicated one

$60 a year is nothing compared to the amount you have to spend on maintenance for your PC, so get the fuck off your high horse. At least I actually made an effort to add to the thread in my first post.

Just not the second or third? I'm also not sure how I spend $60 dollar a year to maintain a pc, I mean the can's of duster I buy arn't that expensive. You do know that you can buy a decent PC for cheep right? Plus your argument is about as directionless as your rage. Also not sure what your new argument is. Uhhh, is it question or which would I pay for or are you just spouting nonsense again, I can't quite decide.
EDIT: I would also like to point out that companies like EA have been charging $10 for multiplayer on all their new games. Even Bad Company 2 made you pay for an online pass or you missed out on a bunch of "free maps," so this is really nothing new. Now, see this is how you make an on topic post, not just a rage fueled moanfest.

 

[razer17]

They do deserve to get some cash from second hand sales.

And why is that? Games are the only item ever where the maker claims to "deserve" cash from second-hand sales, while every single argument I've heard in favour of it so far either is greed, or shared with multiple other products where imposing a tax on second-hand sales would be universally ridiculed.

I call bullshit.

I think I've not made my point well enough. I know that the whole reason for these online passes is greed. My point is that companies can and will do whatever they want to maximise profits. From their perspective this is a good choice. I can see that from their point of view. From my point of view as a consumer, I dislike it greatly. Also applicable is what I say to Royas further down. Hopefully that explains my stance more clearly.

How do you figure they deserve any cash from the second hand market? No other industry gets money from the used product market, how in the hell do the game publishers rate special treatment? Not only does it defy logic, it also goes against the traditional view of the used market. Namely, I bought it, I get to sell it if I want, boo-hoo if you don't like it. They already got what they deserved, legally and morally. They got their money from the initial, new sale, and that's all they should get.

It's pretty clear that this move has nothing to do with piracy, and everything to do with fighting the used game market. On that topic, I have no sympathy for the publishers, I'm pretty tired of hearing them cry like babies over the legal uses of the capitalist system. Somebody give them a frakkin' pacifier already!

Fortunately for me, all that they are keeping out is the multiplayer, and that's about as unimportant to me as is possible.

To the company, second hand sales must be about as useful as piracy. Maybe deserve is the wrong word, but it is obvious they would try earn a little more money. No other entertainment costs as much as games to make.

However, that said, I feel I should make sure you know what my stance on these pay passes is:

I hate them. I think they suck. I will not pay for a pass if I buy a game pre-owned, because the DLC is never good enough to be worth the amount it costs. I believe whole-heartedly in the trade in, second hand market. I use it all the time. I almost never play games twice, so I usually complete them then trade them in straight away, allowing me to buy more games. I also, very often, buy cheaper second hand games. If I really want a game, I'll buy it new, if not I will wait till it's at least sub £20, so half price. Often I will only buy 2 for £20, which is a permanent offer in GameStation.

I fully believe it is our legal right to sell our games on to some one else, and I also believe that these ten dollar passes do nothing but harm to consumers and publishers. However, they are going to try make as much cash as possible, because that's their deal. And the same capitalist right that allows us to trade in our games is what gives them the right to try and charge us for doing so.

I'd like publishers to get involved in the trade in market, because that would benefit everyone.

 

[Kargathia]

Spoiler: snip

They do deserve to get some cash from second hand sales.

And why is that? Games are the only item ever where the maker claims to "deserve" cash from second-hand sales, while every single argument I've heard in favour of it so far either is greed, or shared with multiple other products where imposing a tax on second-hand sales would be universally ridiculed.

I call bullshit.

I think I've not made my point well enough. I know that the whole reason for these online passes is greed. My point is that companies can and will do whatever they want to maximise profits. From their perspective this is a good choice. I can see that from their point of view. From my point of view as a consumer, I dislike it greatly. Also applicable is what I say to Royas further down. Hopefully that explains my stance more clearly.

How do you figure they deserve any cash from the second hand market? No other industry gets money from the used product market, how in the hell do the game publishers rate special treatment? Not only does it defy logic, it also goes against the traditional view of the used market. Namely, I bought it, I get to sell it if I want, boo-hoo if you don't like it. They already got what they deserved, legally and morally. They got their money from the initial, new sale, and that's all they should get.

It's pretty clear that this move has nothing to do with piracy, and everything to do with fighting the used game market. On that topic, I have no sympathy for the publishers, I'm pretty tired of hearing them cry like babies over the legal uses of the capitalist system. Somebody give them a frakkin' pacifier already!

Fortunately for me, all that they are keeping out is the multiplayer, and that's about as unimportant to me as is possible.

To the company, second hand sales must be about as useful as piracy. Maybe deserve is the wrong word, but it is obvious they would try earn a little more money. No other entertainment costs as much as games to make.

However, that said, I feel I should make sure you know what my stance on these pay passes is:

I hate them. I think they suck. I will not pay for a pass if I buy a game pre-owned, because the DLC is never good enough to be worth the amount it costs. I believe whole-heartedly in the trade in, second hand market. I use it all the time. I almost never play games twice, so I usually complete them then trade them in straight away, allowing me to buy more games. I also, very often, buy cheaper second hand games. If I really want a game, I'll buy it new, if not I will wait till it's at least sub £20, so half price. Often I will only buy 2 for £20, which is a permanent offer in GameStation.

I fully believe it is our legal right to sell our games on to some one else, and I also believe that these ten dollar passes do nothing but harm to consumers and publishers. However, they are going to try make as much cash as possible, because that's their deal. And the same capitalist right that allows us to trade in our games is what gives them the right to try and charge us for doing so.

I'd like publishers to get involved in the trade in market, because that would benefit everyone.

"Deserve" certainly is the wrong word. It implies a legal, moral, ethical, or otherwise arguable entitlement. One glaringly absent from this issue.

I'll be a bit blunt, and cut a few more corners than I should, but I think this should be said.

Companies restricting used game sales is at roughly the same level as piracy.

What both share is the complete lack of any ethical basis, and a very simple reason: because they can. Pirates don't steal because of highflown principle, they almost universally do it because - without any repercussion - they can get stuff for free.
The same holds true for companies trying to cash in on second-hand sales. They don't have any basis for it, but they're not barred from doing it either. They saw an opportunity to cash in, and they grabbed it. Good for them.

I don't take issue with their greed either. What I take issue with is that they're trying to play the victim card when anyone doesn't agree with their "god-given right to maximum profit".

 

[I Max95]

well sony just lost sixty bucks
i sure as hell wont be buying it now

and i urge the rest of you not too either
this is a situation where the customer cant win, this is the developers TAKING AWAY from the customer, there is no excuse for it

 

[T-Bone24]

The only people that Sony are "screwing" are people who buy used. If that is the the case, don't buy used, buy new. When I buy anything used, and that includes hardware and such-like, I don't expect it to be fully featured, I expect it to be slightly inferior. A scratch on the case or maybe it skips a bit, but I got it for much cheaper, so I don't mind. If I could pay a fraction of the cost to repair my used DS' wobbly screen, hell yes I would but I bought it expecting there to be some catch, otherwise I wouldn't have bought cheap.

Buy it new: full product.

Buy it cheap: there's a catch.

That's how it is and always has been with everything but software. Now they're just realising that they can get a bit of money out of used game sales, where they would normally get absolutely nothing.

 

[Royas]

They do deserve to get some cash from second hand sales.

And why is that? Games are the only item ever where the maker claims to "deserve" cash from second-hand sales, while every single argument I've heard in favour of it so far either is greed, or shared with multiple other products where imposing a tax on second-hand sales would be universally ridiculed.

I call bullshit.

I think I've not made my point well enough. I know that the whole reason for these online passes is greed. My point is that companies can and will do whatever they want to maximise profits. From their perspective this is a good choice. I can see that from their point of view. From my point of view as a consumer, I dislike it greatly. Also applicable is what I say to Royas further down. Hopefully that explains my stance more clearly.

How do you figure they deserve any cash from the second hand market? No other industry gets money from the used product market, how in the hell do the game publishers rate special treatment? Not only does it defy logic, it also goes against the traditional view of the used market. Namely, I bought it, I get to sell it if I want, boo-hoo if you don't like it. They already got what they deserved, legally and morally. They got their money from the initial, new sale, and that's all they should get.

It's pretty clear that this move has nothing to do with piracy, and everything to do with fighting the used game market. On that topic, I have no sympathy for the publishers, I'm pretty tired of hearing them cry like babies over the legal uses of the capitalist system. Somebody give them a frakkin' pacifier already!

Fortunately for me, all that they are keeping out is the multiplayer, and that's about as unimportant to me as is possible.

To the company, second hand sales must be about as useful as piracy. Maybe deserve is the wrong word, but it is obvious they would try earn a little more money. No other entertainment costs as much as games to make.

However, that said, I feel I should make sure you know what my stance on these pay passes is:

I hate them. I think they suck. I will not pay for a pass if I buy a game pre-owned, because the DLC is never good enough to be worth the amount it costs. I believe whole-heartedly in the trade in, second hand market. I use it all the time. I almost never play games twice, so I usually complete them then trade them in straight away, allowing me to buy more games. I also, very often, buy cheaper second hand games. If I really want a game, I'll buy it new, if not I will wait till it's at least sub £20, so half price. Often I will only buy 2 for £20, which is a permanent offer in GameStation.

I fully believe it is our legal right to sell our games on to some one else, and I also believe that these ten dollar passes do nothing but harm to consumers and publishers. However, they are going to try make as much cash as possible, because that's their deal. And the same capitalist right that allows us to trade in our games is what gives them the right to try and charge us for doing so.

I'd like publishers to get involved in the trade in market, because that would benefit everyone.

Fair enough. In this case, "deserve" was definitely the wrong word, as it gives the impression that you supported their efforts to get more money. So, if I came off as too aggressive in my reply, that would be why. Now that you have clarified your position (very clearly I might add) I can see that I had the wrong idea on what you were saying.