Sony Gets in on Online Pass Action

[Epona]

Should I have had to pay some company for each item sold?

Nobody is arguing that. Strawman harder.

Really? Isn't the argument here that game companies deserve some money from used sales? Well, garage sales are selling used products, some of which are games. However, to be fair, since the game industry isn't special...the logic should apply to all used products that are resold.

The point is to show how ridiculous the logic is.

It would have been a good comparison if the original game purchaser had to pay the company that made the game money to sell it, which they do not.

Don't follow. The point is that once the game is sold to me, it's my property and if I choose to sell it at a garage sale I can do that and the same applies if I choose to sell it to Gamestop, Gorilla Games, Play N Trade, etc...

Not according to most EULAs. Obviously you can't expect to get paid for resale of it because you did not have the person you sold it to sign a EULA.

EULA's are not legally binding and even if they were, they wouldn't trump the First Sale Doctrine.

 

[Bags159]

Should I have had to pay some company for each item sold?

Nobody is arguing that. Strawman harder.

Really? Isn't the argument here that game companies deserve some money from used sales? Well, garage sales are selling used products, some of which are games. However, to be fair, since the game industry isn't special...the logic should apply to all used products that are resold.

The point is to show how ridiculous the logic is.

It would have been a good comparison if the original game purchaser had to pay the company that made the game money to sell it, which they do not.

Don't follow. The point is that once the game is sold to me, it's my property and if I choose to sell it at a garage sale I can do that and the same applies if I choose to sell it to Gamestop, Gorilla Games, Play N Trade, etc...

Not according to most EULAs. Obviously you can't expect to get paid for resale of it because you did not have the person you sold it to sign a EULA.

EULA's are not legally binding and even if they were, they wouldn't trump the First Sale Doctrine.

They may not be legally binding but I have yet to hear of someone taking a company to court in order to get around them.

 

[Scoffy89]

I understand the position that Sony are taking. I don't agree with it but it does make sense. However, if they do decide to go through with this they should consider implementing it in a different way.

For example, if the gaming industry created a new system by which games with multiplayer (there are other rewards but I'll use this for an example) were not given an online pass new or used but reduced prices of the games instead such as instead of 60 dollars or 50 euro they could sell them for 45 dollars or 40 euro and they could play until they reached a certain level like rank 5 or 10. Then if they wished to continue they could buy an online pass or not bother if they did not enjoy the multiplayer. This way not everyone would have to buy an online pass but get the game new for less but those who enjoyed multiplayer can. You could even sell different editions that contain the pass for the current price if people knew they would want multiplayer. This would also help those who don't play multiplayer.

However, they could bend us over that way too buy charging higher prices for the multiplayer if they felt like it, which could end up costing us more overall. Just a thought though.

 

[Epona]

Okay here is a different way to look at this. They don't want you to buy new, although that would be nice. They're fine with you buying old, they just want to make money on that sale too, since this is probably you're first play of the game, and the worth of the product hasn't been degraded.

The thing is, in the long run, this won't affect you, unless you rely on being able to SELL your games.

Because the reason old games are cheaper is because stores are trying to charge you as much as possible for a product they know is slightly inferior. Stores will still want to sell old games and now they know old games are a little more inferior, so the price will be driven down. A £20 games will sell for £15, because you as the consumer don't feel you get value if you have to pay another £5 for online.

Heck you even benefit because your gamemakers get more money, get increased incentive to further support your online and if you don't like online, you don't have to buy it and get cheaper old games.

You can even buy old games, and not feel like you're cheating the manufacturers out of a profit.

EDIT: Also for the people who feel "once I've bought it, the game is my property". Think about what you're saying with the online. The company has to continue providing tech support, server space...etc for you to have that. We know it costs them money because they're forced to shut down service for old games after time. So what you are saying is "i've bought it and that means that these people have to work for me, whether or not i've paid them, indefinitely."

It's not manufacturers refusing to let you buy a second hand car. It's like you demanding that manufacturers continue to guarantee and service your car, when you bought it second hand and didn't pay them a penny

Let me ask you this:

If person A buys the game new and plays online forever, does it cost Sony less than if person A sells the game (can't play online anymore) and person b buys the game and plays online?

One person online per disc. It doesn't matter if it's the original buyer or not, it costs Sony the same. Do you think otherwise?

 

[Epona]

Should I have had to pay some company for each item sold?

Nobody is arguing that. Strawman harder.

Really? Isn't the argument here that game companies deserve some money from used sales? Well, garage sales are selling used products, some of which are games. However, to be fair, since the game industry isn't special...the logic should apply to all used products that are resold.

The point is to show how ridiculous the logic is.

It would have been a good comparison if the original game purchaser had to pay the company that made the game money to sell it, which they do not.

Don't follow. The point is that once the game is sold to me, it's my property and if I choose to sell it at a garage sale I can do that and the same applies if I choose to sell it to Gamestop, Gorilla Games, Play N Trade, etc...

Not according to most EULAs. Obviously you can't expect to get paid for resale of it because you did not have the person you sold it to sign a EULA.

EULA's are not legally binding and even if they were, they wouldn't trump the First Sale Doctrine.

They may not be legally binding but I have yet to hear of someone taking a company to court in order to get around them.

It would be the other way around, the company would have to take the consumer to court to enforce the EULA. The EULA holds no power on it's own.

For example, if the EULA of FF 13 said that you can't resell it. I am not going to take SE to court, I am just gonna ignore the EULA and it's up to them to enforce it.

Bottom line is this, used sales are legal else game publishers would have tried to legally kill Gamestop. They can't legally do that so they try these underhanded methods. These methods are legal and they killed the PC used game market, I encourage gamers to fight back though before there is no used market for console games either.

 

[Bags159]

Okay here is a different way to look at this. They don't want you to buy new, although that would be nice. They're fine with you buying old, they just want to make money on that sale too, since this is probably you're first play of the game, and the worth of the product hasn't been degraded.

The thing is, in the long run, this won't affect you, unless you rely on being able to SELL your games.

Because the reason old games are cheaper is because stores are trying to charge you as much as possible for a product they know is slightly inferior. Stores will still want to sell old games and now they know old games are a little more inferior, so the price will be driven down. A £20 games will sell for £15, because you as the consumer don't feel you get value if you have to pay another £5 for online.

Heck you even benefit because your gamemakers get more money, get increased incentive to further support your online and if you don't like online, you don't have to buy it and get cheaper old games.

You can even buy old games, and not feel like you're cheating the manufacturers out of a profit.

EDIT: Also for the people who feel "once I've bought it, the game is my property". Think about what you're saying with the online. The company has to continue providing tech support, server space...etc for you to have that. We know it costs them money because they're forced to shut down service for old games after time. So what you are saying is "i've bought it and that means that these people have to work for me, whether or not i've paid them, indefinitely."

It's not manufacturers refusing to let you buy a second hand car. It's like you demanding that manufacturers continue to guarantee and service your car, when you bought it second hand and didn't pay them a penny

Let me ask you this:

If person A buys the game new and plays online forever, does it cost Sony less than if person A sells the game (can't play online anymore) and person b buys the game and plays online?

One person online per disc. It doesn't matter if it's the original buyer or not, it costs Sony the same. Do you think otherwise?

I don't think otherwise; I know it doesn't cost them a penny extra. The issue is they want maximum profits, and if you can make two people buy the game new instead of just one of them then you have maximized profits.

 

[BrotherRool]

Let me ask you this:

If person A buys the game new and plays online forever, does it cost Sony less than if person A sells the game (can't play online anymore) and person b buys the game and plays online?

One person online per disc. It doesn't matter if it's the original buyer or not, it costs Sony the same. Do you think otherwise?

Yes I do. Your argument defeats itself with it's own logic.

Player A sells the game. Why? Because he's bored of it and wants a new experience. People don't play games forever and him selling the game demonstrates that he was at the end of the games life and wasn't going to be playing online anymore.

For player B however it's a new game and he's got a whole new gamelifetime of playing to put Sony through.

It was a good and attractive argument but it had the hidden assumption that people play games indefinitely, which is incorrect. My argument has the assumption that there is a set amount of time someone is likely to play a game, which is also incorrect (Player B probably won't play for so long) but is more correct than yours

 

[Epona]

Okay here is a different way to look at this. They don't want you to buy new, although that would be nice. They're fine with you buying old, they just want to make money on that sale too, since this is probably you're first play of the game, and the worth of the product hasn't been degraded.

The thing is, in the long run, this won't affect you, unless you rely on being able to SELL your games.

Because the reason old games are cheaper is because stores are trying to charge you as much as possible for a product they know is slightly inferior. Stores will still want to sell old games and now they know old games are a little more inferior, so the price will be driven down. A £20 games will sell for £15, because you as the consumer don't feel you get value if you have to pay another £5 for online.

Heck you even benefit because your gamemakers get more money, get increased incentive to further support your online and if you don't like online, you don't have to buy it and get cheaper old games.

You can even buy old games, and not feel like you're cheating the manufacturers out of a profit.

EDIT: Also for the people who feel "once I've bought it, the game is my property". Think about what you're saying with the online. The company has to continue providing tech support, server space...etc for you to have that. We know it costs them money because they're forced to shut down service for old games after time. So what you are saying is "i've bought it and that means that these people have to work for me, whether or not i've paid them, indefinitely."

It's not manufacturers refusing to let you buy a second hand car. It's like you demanding that manufacturers continue to guarantee and service your car, when you bought it second hand and didn't pay them a penny

Let me ask you this:

If person A buys the game new and plays online forever, does it cost Sony less than if person A sells the game (can't play online anymore) and person b buys the game and plays online?

One person online per disc. It doesn't matter if it's the original buyer or not, it costs Sony the same. Do you think otherwise?

I don't think otherwise; I know it doesn't cost them a penny extra. The issue is they want maximum profits, and if you can make two people buy the game new instead of just one of them then you have maximized profits.

Yes, it's a cash grab.

There is a phrase that Sony (and EA) need to heed: "Just because you can do a thing does not follow that you should".

I am not on online gamer and indeed I never buy a game with multiplayer in mind. I guess I should be happy with something like this because it will mean fewer people playing online which translates into less online multiplayer focus and more single player focus. However, I know that this is just the precursor to completely eliminating used games. Once they have an activation system in place, they WILL use it for all games just like on PC.

 

[GeorgW]

I'm all for it when publishers do it, but when console manufacturers get involved, things could get ugly. I hope they keep this to their first party stuff, otherwise they're gonna lose a lot of competitive force.
I don't see what the big deal is, there's a good reason they don't want you to buy used. I almost never buy used, only for activision games and similar stuff, and come on, who wants to rob money from devs (publishers) and give it to the likes of gamestop??

 

[Epona]

Let me ask you this:

If person A buys the game new and plays online forever, does it cost Sony less than if person A sells the game (can't play online anymore) and person b buys the game and plays online?

One person online per disc. It doesn't matter if it's the original buyer or not, it costs Sony the same. Do you think otherwise?

Yes I do. Your argument defeats itself with it's own logic.

Player A sells the game. Why? Because he's bored of it and wants a new experience. People don't play games forever and him selling the game demonstrates that he was at the end of the games life and wasn't going to be playing online anymore.

For player B however it's a new game and he's got a whole new gamelifetime of playing to put Sony through.

It was a good and attractive argument but it had the hidden assumption that people play games indefinitely, which is incorrect. My argument has the assumption that there is a set amount of time someone is likely to play a game, which is also incorrect (Player B probably won't play for so long) but is more correct than yours

So their business model is based on people getting bored with the game and putting it on the shelf to collect dust?

 

[stabnex]

So Sony are eliminating their NUMBER ONE sales feature of the PS3 and make online multi-player not just pay-to-play but pay-to-play-every-single-game?

tsk tsk tsk And here I thought Sony wanted more customers? Oh well, their coffin nail.

 

[BrotherRool]

So their business model is based on people getting bored with the game and putting it on the shelf to collect dust?

Obviously. That's why they didn't just make one game and stop, because we were going to play that game for ever. That's the point of games in fact and entertainment media in general.

 

[Epona]

I'm all for it when publishers do it, but when console manufacturers get involved, things could get ugly. I hope they keep this to their first party stuff, otherwise they're gonna lose a lot of competitive force.
I don't see what the big deal is, there's a good reason they don't want you to buy used. I almost never buy used, only for activision games and similar stuff, and come on, who wants to rob money from devs (publishers) and give it to the likes of gamestop??

The other day, I bought some fans from Wal Mart. Does that mean I was robbing Target and KMart?

 

[Epona]

So their business model is based on people getting bored with the game and putting it on the shelf to collect dust?

Obviously. That's why they didn't just make one game and stop, because we were going to play that game for ever. That's the point of games in fact and entertainment media in general.

Well no actually, I doubt SE cares if you're still playing Chrono Trigger to death. They just want you to buy their new game too and in fact, playing CT may actually encourage you to buy another game from the same company.

Of course, my example has nothing to do with online play. I guess if companies are designing games to get boring after a while to save on server costs, then they are shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[GeorgW]

I'm all for it when publishers do it, but when console manufacturers get involved, things could get ugly. I hope they keep this to their first party stuff, otherwise they're gonna lose a lot of competitive force.
I don't see what the big deal is, there's a good reason they don't want you to buy used. I almost never buy used, only for activision games and similar stuff, and come on, who wants to rob money from devs (publishers) and give it to the likes of gamestop??

The other day, I bought some fans from Wal Mart. Does that mean I was robbing Target and KMart?

I think you misunderstood me.
The people actually making the game, putting their heart adn soul (and in regards to who gets the biggest cut by far, money) into their games, get absolutely nothing from used sales. The retailer gets the whole cut, and all they did was use up some shelf space.
That just doesn't seem fair to me.
As for which retailer it is, that doesn't matter. I just used gamestop as an example.

 

[Epona]

I'm all for it when publishers do it, but when console manufacturers get involved, things could get ugly. I hope they keep this to their first party stuff, otherwise they're gonna lose a lot of competitive force.
I don't see what the big deal is, there's a good reason they don't want you to buy used. I almost never buy used, only for activision games and similar stuff, and come on, who wants to rob money from devs (publishers) and give it to the likes of gamestop??

The other day, I bought some fans from Wal Mart. Does that mean I was robbing Target and KMart?

I think you misunderstood me.
The people actually making the game, putting their heart adn soul (and in regards to who gets the biggest cut by far, money) into their games, get absolutely nothing from used sales. The retailer gets the whole cut, and all they did was use up some shelf space.
That just doesn't seem fair to me.
As for which retailer it is, that doesn't matter. I just used gamestop as an example.

Every game that is sold used was already sold new. That is where the publishers get their money from.

 

[BrotherRool]

So their business model is based on people getting bored with the game and putting it on the shelf to collect dust?

Obviously. That's why they didn't just make one game and stop, because we were going to play that game for ever. That's the point of games in fact and entertainment media in general.

Well no actually, I doubt SE cares if you're still playing Chrono Trigger to death. They just want you to buy their new game too and in fact, playing CT may actually encourage you to buy another game from the same company.

Of course, my example has nothing to do with online play. I guess if companies are designing games to get boring after a while to save on server costs, then they are shooting themselves in the foot.

Sony care, because time spent playing Chrono Trigger is time not spent on a new experience.

Look, capitalism itself is based on reinvestment and growth. I've tried to come up with a list of things which you aren't meant to get bored off and put aside and I've come up with.
House
Cooker
Table
Wife

And that's incorrect. You're meant to desire to refurbish you kitchen and move up the property ladder and for that matter, there's arguments for divorce.

Companies release phones, based on the model that you will be bored of your current phone within a year, three years at outside (they aren't even designed to last that long). People sell books with the idea that as soon as you've read that book you are looking for a new one to read.

With DVDs you're supposed to want a new one each birthday and special event, not just watch the same DVD.

What's more I can guarantee you the number of people who've bought a game played the online, never got bored of it and never needed a new experience amount to everyone who bought Starcraft 1 and no-one else. The whole point of media is you consume it, not keep it.

And that goes for online. They model based on people not buying the game and playing it forever. And you know what? They're right. Go on a game even a month after it's released and less people are playing online than in the first week. This is an actual statistic which I can point to that you are arguing about

 

[Shriveled Pumpkin]

Dammit, I won't be able to eat half my cake--or, maybe even all of it.

I mean, c'mon Sony. I would have thought that you would at least try to regain our trust, bring us up to where we were before the hacking ordeal, before you try and pull any crap like this. I mean, it makes me think of someone ( *coughSonycough*)losing someone else's used car (losing, among other things, our online capabilities(yes, our credit card no.'s are more important, but not the point) to some hackers), failing to tell us for a week, finally offering us another used car with some more bells and whistles (Welcome Back Program), giving it to us for free, but then turning around and telling us that the ability to roll down the windows is a BONUS. As in, we must pay extra (I know, long-winded, but a great analogy). I mean, what if I buy a brand new game for 60 bucks, only to realize that it's online only (you may say, "Well, you should have checked", but I mean, c'mon, some woman sued MacDonald's for not putting a Caution Hot label on their coffee, and she won. She didn't check.) and now I need to dish out another 20 dollars if I even want to get a TASTE of the online. And will I be able to sell it back, the pass? I doubt it. It will be USED. So, that's how I could blow 80 bucks on a game that isn't worth two craps, learn that's what it's worth after paying for the pass, and being screwed into selling it for 20 bucks at Gamestop. Great deal, right? ALTHOUGH, for having said all that, maybe they won't have any passes for online only games. Who knows? Maybe I'm just skeptical, for just last month, Sony screwed me over with the whole hacking fiasco. And I'm still recovering from that suckerpunch of a realization, and that Sony's only claim to fame, free online, is going to soon have a price tag (that's an exaggeration, but you get the point). Or, maybe it's like how my friend just bought a used copy of MW2 (for 55.99, mind you) from Best Buy, and only uses it for online. ONLY ONLINE. If a used game costs that much, and the single player has universally bad reviews, then I don't want to spend 80 freaking dollars on online only, maybe because that's the only thing that's worth it on the disk.

 

[Epona]

So their business model is based on people getting bored with the game and putting it on the shelf to collect dust?

Obviously. That's why they didn't just make one game and stop, because we were going to play that game for ever. That's the point of games in fact and entertainment media in general.

Well no actually, I doubt SE cares if you're still playing Chrono Trigger to death. They just want you to buy their new game too and in fact, playing CT may actually encourage you to buy another game from the same company.

Of course, my example has nothing to do with online play. I guess if companies are designing games to get boring after a while to save on server costs, then they are shooting themselves in the foot.

Sony care, because time spent playing Chrono Trigger is time not spent on a new experience.

Look, capitalism itself is based on reinvestment and growth. I've tried to come up with a list of things which you aren't meant to get bored off and put aside and I've come up with.
House
Cooker
Table
Wife

And that's incorrect. You're meant to desire to refurbish you kitchen and move up the property ladder and for that matter, there's arguments for divorce.

Companies release phones, based on the model that you will be bored of your current phone within a year, three years at outside (they aren't even designed to last that long). People sell books with the idea that as soon as you've read that book you are looking for a new one to read.

With DVDs you're supposed to want a new one each birthday and special event, not just watch the same DVD.

What's more I can guarantee you the number of people who've bought a game played the online, never got bored of it and never needed a new experience amount to everyone who bought Starcraft 1 and no-one else. The whole point of media is you consume it, not keep it.

And that goes for online. They model based on people not buying the game and playing it forever. And you know what? They're right. Go on a game even a month after it's released and less people are playing online than in the first week. This is an actual statistic which I can point to that you are arguing about

Great, so they purposely build a defective product and you eat it up.

 

[silent_noir_67]

I love how the argument of
"well PSN is better than XBL because its FREE"
is no longer applicable...