More Publishers Looking To Charge For Online Play

VicTheMighty
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 10:49:48 AM
Reply

lol then this is the end of multi-player used games. Used games are generally in great condition and resold for 10$ less from the original price. Who would want to buy an old one at the same price as a new one? XD

Retailers will just have to give even less money for them and charge less I guess.

Too bad I really liked the give two games get one free promotions lol.

Last edited by VicTheMighty on 5/22/2010 10:51:52 AM

5 up, 1 down

dachemists
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 11:10:09 AM

i think this will hurt gamestops b2g1 free deals, because you will have to pay an extra $30 for all three games if u want to play online

Last edited by dachemists on 5/22/2010 11:10:27 AM

3 up, 0 down

I_defenestrate
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 1:02:02 PM

Single player experiences are still good for used games. Can't really charge extra for that and not look bad.

3 up, 0 down

rogers71
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 5:24:29 PM

I agree with you I_defenestrate

I don't play online MP too often. This will not affect me in the least. I buy games for the single player experience.

4 up, 1 down

frostface
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 10:51:41 AM
Reply

So if you pay the one time fee but bring the game around to a mates house to play online with them...you gotta pay a fee again to use the same game on their console? Kinda sucks but people seem to love their online experiences enough to pay out. Give me a good enough single player game and maybe I will, maybe I won't, pay for the online.

5 up, 0 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 3:56:23 PM

If you put your profile on their system and logged in with your PSN account things might be fine.

1 up, 0 down

Mamills
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 10:58:46 AM
Reply

you know i can understand the game developers point of view in this.

they really see no money from used games, but the thing is, it sux. game are already too expensive as is. so naturally we as consumers will obviously try to find the best deal we can.

im guessing the code will lock to each of our accounts so we can just sign in where ever to play.

i buy games day 1 of release so i dont really care what they do to used games.

too bad for the ppl with xboxes though, just another bill for them to pay. (Unless they have a modded 360, which all my friends have for single player multiplats)

2 up, 6 down

RadioHeader
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 10:59:41 AM
Reply

I blame Micro$haft and their xbl-money for this. Others have observed and decided they would also like some free money.

12 up, 1 down

Snaaaake
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 11:09:03 AM

This is business, you can't put the blame on Microsoft just because there's everything bad in video game industry.

4 up, 9 down

Jawknee
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 11:12:23 AM

MS has turned the business into a money machine. As a result the focus as switched from making great games to making the most money. So yes, its appropriate to put some blame one MS.

19 up, 2 down

laxpro2001
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 4:59:28 PM

Nah, I don't think you really can blame Microsoft. As much as they do throw there money around, this has probably been in the making for far too long. The managers of these companies are stupid (well except for Activision lol). They realize by there being a used market they are going to lose potential sales so they just want a way to get some of these lost profits back.

0 up, 6 down

laxpro2001
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 7:09:23 PM

EDIT to my post... should be managers aren't stupid

0 up, 0 down

SirLoin of Beef
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 11:44:52 AM

It took longer than I thought until someone did the usual "I blame MS for this" response. I'm sure they gave GameStop a whole boat load of money to create their used game business in the hopes that down the road EA and others would start charging money for those who buy used games to play them online.

0 up, 3 down

Jawknee
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 11:13:44 AM
Reply

::facepalm::

Maybe these companies should focus on making games that don't suck so people don't sell them.

21 up, 1 down

OtisFeelgood
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 3:10:04 PM

I second that.

7 up, 0 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 3:57:47 PM

haha, cutting right though the BS as usual Jawknee.

6 up, 0 down

___________
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 2:43:04 AM

people dont sell their games because they suck, they sell them because there bored of them.
how many times can you play the same game over and over again?
i loved heavy rain, its my favorite game this gen by far!
but i got rid of it this week because ive finished it like 20 times and really im sick of it!
no matter how good a game is people are going to be taking them back once their done with it.

3 up, 2 down

FlyingKickPunch
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 9:08:23 AM

________, you're weird...

3 up, 1 down

Nynja
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 7:03:37 PM

I agree 100%. Although I know people just like blank line, once they've earned their platinum trophy the game is gone. It doesn't matter how much they liked the game, they trade it in.

1 up, 0 down

___________
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 8:24:22 AM

once im done with a game i get rid of it.
i can only play through something a certain amount of times before i get bored of it.
can you watch the same episode of your favorite show over and over and over again?

0 up, 0 down

BigT_1980
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 11:27:41 AM
Reply

I agree with the publishers and developers 100% on this. Why should they have to tax their servers on game sales that they did not yield a dime from? I personally never buy used games unless the publisher quits selling the game new.

2 up, 8 down

Jawknee
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 11:35:24 AM

Because when one person sells a game to Gamestop they are no longer "taxing" their servers. When the game sells again, that person who purchased the game used is simply replacing the person who sold the game in the first place. I can understand the need to make money but this just seems a bit greedy.

I again suggest these companies start making games that don't suck so people are inclined to keep them.

Cool avatar by the way. =)

Last edited by Jawknee on 5/22/2010 11:36:44 AM

13 up, 2 down

NoSmokingBandit
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 1:28:41 PM

If 100 people buy the game, then sell it, then 100 people buy used copies, theres still only 100 games in the wild using server space and time.

If they want to pull this sh*t they should sell the games for $50 new so those who dont play online (like myself) dont pay the so-called "online fee" if they dont use it.

8 up, 1 down

tes37
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 1:35:08 PM

Developers could at any time, after releasing a block-buster, retire on that money instead of re-investing in another game. Nobody who buys a new game, no matter what the cost, is going to be affected by this.

Last edited by tes37 on 5/22/2010 1:35:56 PM

0 up, 0 down

oldmike
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 3:43:19 PM

i call bull on the still just 100 users
how many of the used sales mite have got it new if there was no used copys
even at 15% that adds up

2 up, 4 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 4:00:14 PM

no dice oldmike, when I'm dead set on getting a game at a cheaper price, I have no problem waiting until a used one pops on the scene. I never say "Well since I can't get it for $30-$40 I'll go spend $60 on it.

5 up, 1 down

Fane1024
Thursday, May 27, 2010 @ 7:49:11 PM

In fact, the potential of reselling games actually drives more new game sales at release, because people who don't want to pay full price will buy the game knowing they can resell/trade it.

I don't blame publishers for trying to convince people to buy games new, but I do think they over-estimate how many "lost sales" are caused by the used games market. If anything, it reduces the number of game rentals.

As World intimated, people have X amount of money to spend on games.

Last edited by Fane1024 on 5/27/2010 7:49:53 PM

0 up, 0 down

Cholo Gamer
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 11:38:12 AM
Reply

So what if you borrow the game from a friend or buy it off him? This is LAME!

5 up, 2 down

Superman915
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 12:01:42 PM
Reply

Air jordans? $30 sign me up for...

Oh wait, 1-24 only? Im a 24 and a half! dang.

anyways, i actaully dont mind this. i buy less and less used games now because i see what a rip off it is to do so. hunt around and youll find amazing prices on new.

0 up, 2 down

Jawknee
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 12:08:57 PM
Reply

This is going to cause some complications for GameFly subscribers too.

4 up, 0 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 4:01:13 PM

Gamefly subscribers are totally F*cked if they like to play online.

4 up, 0 down

Scarecrow
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 12:10:56 PM
Reply

They should go to the Supreme Court and sue the hell out of Gamestop

Or try to make a law that prohibits re-sales of games

Whatever, I haven't bought a EA, THQ, or Ubisoft game in years so whatever

0 up, 6 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 4:01:38 PM

no Dead Space? For shame...

1 up, 0 down

Orvisman
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 5:23:39 PM

LOL. They can't sue GameStop for selling used games.

Even if they could, they would have to sue Wal-Mart, Toys R' Us, Amazon, and everyone on eBay who sells used games and even then it wouldn't be before the Supreme Court because it isn't a Constitutional issue.

Furthermore, I've written this before, and I'll write it again, if you make it illegal to sell used videogames, you need to make it illegal to sell used books, CDs, DVDs, Blu-Rays, cars, clothes, etc... So, say goodbye to places like eBay too.

And you can't sit there and respond by writing some ridiculous retort about used books, CDs, cars, and the like not being the same as used games because, bottom line, GM and Ford don't see a dime on that used Chrysler or Buick (or whatever car you prefer) you drive off the used car lot.

Then again, I'm sure there will be those of you who, in your GameStop-fueled hatred, will try to make that claim.

8 up, 1 down

tes37
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 8:11:42 PM

All of your examples also don't provide free online gameplay, so it's all irrelevant.

0 up, 3 down

Orvisman
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 5:59:43 PM

Of course it is relevant as a response to Scarecrow, as relevant as saying videogame companies should sue GameStop for selling used games.

Reread Scarecrow's comment and then my response to his comment and tell me it isn't relevant. If you have any comprehension skills you'll realize it is relevant to his comment.

If I must make the example relevant to the article for you to comprehend what I wrote, fine.

It would be like you driving that used GM car off the car lot and then having to pay GM a fee to unlock the passenger side and rear doors and unlock the seat belts so you can pick up your mates and take them for a ride.

There, does that do it for you?

2 up, 0 down

Athrin
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 12:16:11 PM
Reply

wow they realy whant to kill the platform gaming industry dont they, well used game industry is done for, thats certain, Gamestop already gives nothing for their games and only sells em 5$ cheaper than the new, so i u have to pain 10$ more for online the used game is more expensive than the new LMFAO!!!

3 up, 1 down

Qubex
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 12:46:24 PM
Reply

I hate what they have done... But it is clever!

Q!

"pay and play"

3 up, 0 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 4:02:43 PM

Tell me, when did Saruman the wise abandon reason for madness?

6 up, 0 down

laxpro2001
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 5:08:10 PM

Oh yes Qubex, it is very clever! I really don't mind it though.

I rarely ever buy used as its easy enough to find good deals on new games. Also I'm not a big fan the likes of Gamestop and I'm really curious to see how they react to this and whether or not they decrease prices.

I may be being short-sighted here but I don't see it backfiring on the publisher that much at all, but definitely see where its going to hurt used game sales and I'm just fine with that.

@World
Yes...

Last edited by laxpro2001 on 5/22/2010 5:08:45 PM

1 up, 0 down

Nlayer
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 12:54:12 PM
Reply

Where has the Video Game industry gone? I feel like I'm being cheated. The online experience should be part of the game that I bought. Even if it is used. I guess I can't blame them though, I knew something like this would happen to the Used market. It was foreseeable.

I barely play online now, so I won't be effected too greatly by it. I guess this will just help me stay away from games like Call of Duty and Halo(If they follow the same idea). I only buy those used and for online play, I'm not made of money.

But I agree with most, they should start making Good games that don't suck. I usually buy Good games new.

2 up, 0 down

tes37
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 1:11:47 PM
Reply

I think this is laughable that people complain about theft being eliminated. If you want or need charity that's fine, but it should be limited to food or shelter.

I have no sympathy for those who started all this to begin with. People made themselves a sh*t sandwich and complain that it has sh*t on it. If you buy used games from Gamestop you are the one to blame for this new EA program.

4 up, 4 down

Highlander
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 7:29:57 PM

Agreed. When a person buys a used game they are not buying anything except what is on the disc. Access to the online service is based on the customer relationship with the service provider. If you buy your game used, you have no relationship with them. So you have to pay a fee to access the online portion because you bought the game used. Wow, whatever next, paying for services we use? Shocking. Then there is this whole bogus idea that because someone buys the game new they perpetually reserve a 'slot' for anyone they may or may not sell the game to in future. That's just ridiculous. You used the service. When you sold the game on, you sold the game disc, you did not sell the service. Stop whining because someone finally figured out a way to make you pay for a service, that through a loophole you've been getting for free.

4 up, 3 down

tes37
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 8:25:23 PM

Well said Highlander.

2 up, 3 down

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 1:16:22 PM
Reply

Guys, STOP responding to spambots. All that means is I have to delete the responses, too.

We're taking care of it now, so STOP.

5 up, 1 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 4:03:56 PM

Sorry, I was just jokin'

0 up, 0 down

laxpro2001
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 5:01:15 PM

Sorry Ben :(

1 up, 0 down

Orvisman
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 5:25:10 PM

Benhammered!

1 up, 1 down

sha4dowknight05
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 1:27:29 PM
Reply

LOL this is quite funny as UFC is going to do this too! It just goes to show that people sell all their old games to gamestop for unfair prices. I had 2 copies of KILLZONE 2 and one was brand new. Went to EBGAMES and they only offer $3 because it was old game. This as 1 day after Christmas and $3 is nothing. So I waited until Avatar came out and traded that for the Blu-ray for Avatar at Futureshop. For UFC I really don't care about the online since it really sucked for the game. Hopefully 2010 will be different that 2009's UFC.

1 up, 0 down

CrispyJawas
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 1:32:06 PM
Reply

I think this is a good idea, developers and publishers should target the used game buyers.
It will not affect me because I always pre-order then purchase my games new. I'm more a collector of the art of video games and value each and every gaming disc I've ever purchased. Some of my games are 20 years old and still look new. Most hold sentimental value as well.
I really don't have any sympathy for the gamers now days that burn through a game over a weekend then shuffle off to GameStop for store credit on another used game.
If anything EA, THQ and others should charge more than $5 - $10. Just my opinion.

5 up, 3 down

tes37
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 1:44:34 PM

People don't seem to understand the concept behind this. This is the only way they can catch some of these people playing their product without having given them a dime. Those who decide to play online are called out on it and forced to give them what they deserve in order to participate.

Last edited by tes37 on 5/22/2010 1:46:37 PM

3 up, 3 down

Fane1024
Thursday, May 27, 2010 @ 7:58:57 PM

I would argue that as the eventual (and final) owner of the game, I am the one who actually paid the publisher for it (at least the portion I paid). The original buyer and anyone else who had it were paying GameStop to rent it.

Still, I mostly buy new games.

0 up, 0 down

FullmetalX10
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 1:42:05 PM
Reply

I don't mind, since I buy my games new, it'll just be a pain someday, when I borrow a game from a friend -_-

2 up, 0 down

RebelJD
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 1:49:34 PM
Reply

Publishers charging for online play on used games can be seen as over the top. Charging per title is asking for way too much from a consumer. We understand that Publishers don't see any money from used game sales but it is their reputation that will be in jeopardy, not the used game stores. Gamestop has already monopolized the used game industry so this move may hurt them but...in the end, that's what they get.

As all projects that have a "beta" stage. I'm sure these publishers will be keeping a close eye on how consumers react and if they respond at all. A monthly fee, annual fee sounds more appropriate. That's how the rest of the world does it for providing their services.

2 up, 8 down

Highlander
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 7:31:54 PM

Why is asking someone to pay for what they use over the top? That's what you're saying. You said "Charging per title is asking for way too much from a consumer. ". Oh, so does that mean when we purchase one game we are entitled to all the others as well? That's the logic of what you're saying, and it's completely bogus.

3 up, 2 down

Mornelithe
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 2:04:29 PM
Reply

No thanks, I'm really not interested in anymore paid services at the moment. I just broke free of my WoW addiction, and not really keen on jumping into a new one. Maybe sometime down the road it's possible...but really not anything I'd use atm.

6 up, 0 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 4:07:11 PM

Welcome back to the real world, but there's no Mohawk Grenades here. Remember that.

2 up, 0 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 4:14:12 PM
Reply

Hmmmm. While I think it's okay for these guys to get paid a little for their hard work concerning used game sales. And lets face it, publishers have been looking for a piece of that action for years; I also think this is going to throw a gigantic monkey wrench into the way the whole industry works. My esteemed colleagues above pretty much outline why.

Ultimately though, I see this backfiring. People who never buy new won't just start doing it so there's no extra money there. People who buy used will pay for special games that occupy them for a year or more like MW2, but will then be less likely to buy any other games. So in the end everybody loses because sales will slump and multiplayer aficionados will buy fewer titles overall.

It won't really affect me since I don't play online much (and I can't right now because of the constant 8002AD23 errors) but this sucks for a lot of people.

And get that google ad back where it belongs.

Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 5/22/2010 4:27:07 PM

4 up, 0 down

Highlander
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 7:33:44 PM

If anything this will crimp used game sales and have a slight increase on new game sales because some small % of those who were going to buy used will ultimately buy new. The ones who were going to buy new anyway are unaffected by this, and so their purchase plans remain the same.

1 up, 5 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 8:28:44 PM

Nah cuz it will still be cheaper to get a game at $30-$40 then pay the $10 for online versus $60 for the whole shabang, when people don't want to pay full price they don't change their minds on it very often.

4 up, 1 down

sha4dowknight05
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 5:05:34 PM
Reply

What's with these spammers?

1 up, 0 down

Orvisman
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 5:25:39 PM

It has been Benhammered!

0 up, 0 down

Orvisman
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 5:30:22 PM
Reply

I’m sure I’ll receive a few thumbs down for this comment but it has to be made.

I believe Sony was the first publisher to do this for a console or handheld with the release of Socom
Fireteam Bravo 3. Those people who buy the game used have to buy a code to be able to play the game
online, so it wasn’t EA that introduced this concept but Sony. Unless, of course, someone can point out another publisher that did this on consoles or handhelds before Socom Fireteam Bravo 3.

4 up, 0 down

Highlander
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 7:35:03 PM

Why get thumbs down for truth? Either way, I see no problem with someone charging for online use with a second hand game. How likely are Verizon to allow the holder of a used telephone to access their network without paying? Same concept.

2 up, 1 down

Jamaican_Heat
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 9:22:37 PM
Reply

Well I belive the 5 dollar fee is only valid through used game purchases through gamestop/eb games. If you buy off a friend or somethign that wouldnt matter I cant see the system being able to tell if the games used or new. That would mean rentals wouldnt work either.

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 9:37:47 PM

When you buy the game and use the *single use* code to activate online, it's linked to your PSN ID. When your friend sells you the game, unless they also give you their PSN ID, you'll have to pay $5 to activate the online part for *your* PSNID. Remember the code you get with the game is a single use code.

1 up, 2 down

Fane1024
Thursday, May 27, 2010 @ 8:12:27 PM

Rentals WON'T work without paying the extra amount.

Though EA did say there would be a 7-day period of free online in their version.

0 up, 0 down

BikerSaint
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 10:13:26 PM
Reply

Guess what, I buy mostly used & I will continue to do so, whether or not you set a used online fee or not.
And since I only do single player mode, you will NEVER get 1 penny towards any added fees.
I still think it's a rip-off just because if I sell a game, then I could no longer use it on-line, but the person buying it from me can take my same spot, so in my eayes, it's a 1 to 1 ratio, it's the same exact spot being held on the severs that's being re-sold over & over & over again, not a secondary new spot(see my thought on this below).

I already posted this on the First EA $10 pass" thread, but I think it's worth re=posting
once again......

Highlander,
I don't do online so I don't know how all this works so I'm going to guess a bit here....

What about in this hypothetical scenario????

Say I buy one of their sports games brand new, but since I only play SP mode, I never go on-line.

Now by buying that said game brand new, I just bought the right's(and am entitled) to 1 spot on their server, whether I ever use it or not, am I right so far???

So, if I'm correct so far, and I never use the their on-line, but I sell the game 1 week later, that same 1 spot on the sever has no way of knowing I sold the game, so it is still open for me.

Now, the guy who just bought my game IS a on-line player & he DOEs go on-line & replaces me on my same 1 open spot on that server(that I hadn't ever used).

So, if my thinking is fairly correct so far, then how exactly is EA losing any money when they're not having to open up an additional 1 spot on their server for that guy who bought my used game??? And why should any of that even matter if nothing's changed to the server's amount of opened spots, especially if the server can't distinguish between him or me??? It's still 1 to 1 ratio right????

And something else I just thought of too, is that there's a lot of people just like myself, who don't do online gaming, so EA would be in effect doing nothing more than "DOUBLE-DIPPING" that same fee twice for all those open spots that they had ALREADY saved for those non-on-line players too, right?

********************************************

EA's won't be hurting GS or any other "used" game re-seller as much as they'll be hurting the "used" game customers that only have severely limited funds to begin with.

Should those less unfortunate with money be penalized for not having any? What about disabled people, what about people in cash-oppressed countries, or what about people who's medical bills can't justify the price of new games????

And seriously now, exactly how much of each $10 Pass EA's making a grab for(if any fraction of $$ at all), do you really think that EA is going to set aside for the developers???

I say exactly "ZERO"!!!!

Anyways, something that "Gabriel013" said in one of his post's in that first "EA $10 pass thread) that, his idea really got me thinking about it and I believe that this would the best amount of sense for "everyone" involved.

Instead of trying to nickel & dime all the consumers with every their new fee they can think up, the publisher's just need to set up their own used game trading post. And they could do this all much more fairly than Gamestop ever could too.

A prime example could be that if you want to trade in your EA game for another EA game, then EA will give you a "FAIR" trade-in price towards another title(either brand new or used.
Then EA can re-sell that used game they just took in, at a much "FAIRER" price too, right back to the next customer with on-line right's already included in the re-sold disc too.

And they could even use a sliding price scale for if that same game were to continuously return back to EA. So, each time that same game's sold, & it happens to return again for another title, the price on that old game drops a bit more once again for the next customer.

Plus they can proportion a small amount(maybe 5 to 10% of that money?) to go right back into the developer's pockets on each used game's re-sale too.

But, if this scenario would be too much of a hassle for each individual publisher to do themselves, then they could ALL work together to create this new "used" games co-op type business & that way, even one publisher's game could also be traded for another publisher's game.

Something along those lines could really work to satisfy all, both the Publisher, the Developer, and most of all, all of the gaming consumers too.

Now, I'm sure Gamestop would take a great big hit in the beginning and I hate to see any company go out of business(except for MS), but I believe that GS/EB could still survive.

But not unless they completely & drastically re-vamp their business model/policy with a lot of changes, and completely overhaul & revise their horrible trade-in pricing structure to a much needed fairer trade value too, which would be another beneficial side-effect bonus for all gaming consumers. Plus pay a percentage to the co-op to keep the on-line portion included in that used game

3 up, 1 down

Highlander
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 11:13:18 PM

Like I said in the previous thread on this. If you buy a game with an online access code new from the store and never go online with it (and never use the code) then when you sell the game, the code is still available for use by the person that buys the game. Once that code is used, it's used.

2 up, 2 down

maxpontiac
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 11:51:57 PM
Reply

Besides the global economy having a major impact..

I look at the original members of X-Box Live. They started this "acceptance" of pay to play online for the consoles.

Those who continue to pay $50 USD a year do nothing but reinforce the failed system that Microsoft so desperately clings to.

X-Box Live turned into paid DLC. The battle cry has always been "You get what you pay for", right?

Paid DLC is now turning into online access codes for used games. But people won't mind since they are buying a game at a lower price then $60 USD, right?

What's next?

Now mind you, I do NOT purchase used games often, but I know a ton of people that do. Bottom line? This madness should have stopped along time ago, and I am thankful Sony hasn't succumbed to this anti-consumer business model.

I say anti-consumer for one reason. MS did not CARE about my woes with 360 over the course of two years, but let me say this, when I CANCELLED my two Live subscriptions, their roof was on fire!

4 up, 0 down

BikerSaint
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 4:45:20 PM

Highlander, I do understand what you're saying about the "ONE TIME" code, but it didn't help to answer my question.

Ea sets aside 1 spot on the sever for 1 game it has sold.... right so far????

(Now, let's say for sake of argument, there weren't any special 1-time codes yet).

Now as the very 1st buyer of that game, I DO choose to go online & take my spot on their server, but I get bored with the game & wind up selling it 4 weeks later.

So as I see it, if that secondary buyer wanted to go on-line too, then he would have taken the same spot that I left(at a 1-in for 1-out, or in other words, the same 1 to 1 ratio), Right????.

And since my spot was already open but sitting being unused by me for a short while, then the 2nd buyer hasn't wound up creating a secondary spot on the server at all, seeing how my sot was still open anyway, therefore no bandwidth being money used as any added expenses to EA either.
Right?

Now, if I have been correct in my thinking all along, then all I see is that EA is going to be double dipping, triple dipping, and/or quadruple dipping by charging first for my original game's 1st fee, and then again at least 2 more times.

And for the very same spot that I had already paid when I bought bought that game new.

The only thing I can think of that could be worrying EA, is somehow that in their minds(unbeknown to us), they've been setting an unrealistic period of time limit on each saved server spot, for what they hope is only going to be a short period of "X amount of months, or a year or so, etc, no thanks to the patterns being set this gen by most of the twitch players.

What say you???

Last edited by BikerSaint on 5/23/2010 4:55:46 PM

1 up, 0 down

Highlander
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 12:21:29 AM

@Biker, the problem here is that you are imagining a 'slot' that is reserved on the server for the owner of that copy of the game. It's not like that. The server space is allocated by individually named user.

Too many people here are either incorrectly thinking that this extra fee will somehow impact their *new* purchases, or that buyers of used games are somehow magically known to the publisher of the game and the network services provided. When you buy a used game the transaction is between you and the seller of the used game. When you buy a brand new game your transaction is between you, the retailer and the publisher who is a direct beneficiary of the new game sale. Whether or not any of you want to accept it, that is how it is. Used game buyers do not have any standing with the publisher of the game or their network service.

0 up, 1 down

Highlander
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 1:58:57 PM

Right or wrong. Pay for a service you receive or don't pay. If you expect to receive a service without paying, that would be wrong. If on the other hand you are willing to pay for a service you receive, that would be right. Right and wrong. Easy.

How does this benefit me, a buyer of new games? Simple. If game publishers and developers have to pay the costs associated with providing online content and play to gamers who have not paid them a single penny for the game, then that additional cost is paid for by me. Ultimately that could raise the price of games that I buy, or compromise the quality. So if game publishers/developers start charging secondary users of games for online access, that protects me as a consumer of new games.

It's a simple enough point that anyone should be able to understand, just like paying for a service you receive.

As for what's hurting the gaming industry it's a combination of piracy, use game sales, game sharing (aka using someone else's account to use a game you didn't purchase), and an entitlement mentality that has people believing that a) games are more expensive now than ever before (untrue), that b) game companies are raking it in (EA just posted a $667 million loss) and that c)it's OK to demand something for nothing.

Once you accept that it's fair to pay for a service you use, then I don't see how you can possibly complain about any game publisher making users of second hand games actually pay for their network access.

0 up, 0 down

frostface
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 2:19:31 AM
Reply

I think what'll happen is, places like Gamestop will now pay less for your used games and keep selling them back at the same price but with the online codes included in the price. As if selling to them wasn't bad enough, they'll make you think they're doing you a favour.

0 up, 0 down

___________
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 2:47:42 AM
Reply

and they wonder why people pirate their games!
honestly, thats like banging your bosses wife in his brand new 100K dollar car than burning it.
than wondering why your fired the next day.
sorry EA, but im not a bank, if this is how you want to treat your fans and say thank you for buying our title than.
crysis 2 preorder canceled.
madden 2011 preorder canceled.
dead space 2 preorder canceled.
MOH preorder canceled.

2 up, 1 down

Highlander
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 3:00:19 AM
Reply

For goodness sakes, some people simply do not want to see do they?

You buy a game, you don't buy the online service. Just because you purchased a game that does *NOT* open up some kind of perpetual slot for you and your descendants to use in perpetuity. YOU bought the game, so YOU can use it online. If you later sell the game to someone else, you are still the owner of the 'slot' you imagine exists, it is not, and cannot and will not be transferred to the next buyer of the game.

The used game purchaser is responsible for their own relationship with the network service provider. To think otherwise is simply wanting something for nothing, and all of you know that's not going to happen. This hasn't got anything to do with corporate greed, politics, price gouging, Xbox Live or anything else. It's simple reality and it's biting you in the ass. Deal with it, but for God's sake stop whining like a bunch of cheap children.

3 up, 6 down

FlyingKickPunch
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 9:09:59 AM

you da man, highlander! :)

2 up, 2 down

maxpontiac
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 11:32:33 AM

Some people feel the need to take up the defense of the game industry. As if they need a hero or something. Good job Highlander, the check is the mail...

As I said in my post, I don't buy used games. So, that end doesn't effect me. But I do have multiple PS3's running in the house, and in some cases, only one copy of a game that has online features. I know man, I am being "cheap", but sometimes I can only afford one copy of a certain game.

But hey, keep buying Live, keep paying what they want. You'll do nothing more then continue your path of becoming a poster child for their "average consumer sheep"..

2 up, 0 down

BikerSaint
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 5:08:07 PM

Highlander,
Well if that's the case, and in the same token of fairness......

Since I "NEVER" go on-line, then EA should also have forfeit $10 of the purchase price right back to me on any games bought new.
Charge only the Multi=player mode players, not not those of us who are only single mode players.

Fair is fair!!!!!
(otherwise SCREW EA & their added fee)!

1 up, 0 down

Highlander
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 6:37:33 PM

@Biker, if you never go online then this is good for you since it will preserve the profitability of games and keep prices from rising. If anything when you buy a game new and don't use the online code, it enhanced the resale value.

@MaxPontiac

This is not about defending the gaming industry this is about right and wrong. If you think it's fair to demand that EA or anyone else provide you with a service that you DID NOT pay them for, you have a problem. If you think that someone pointing this out is them defending the industry, you have an even bigger problem. Where I come from, when I grew up I learned that you pay for the services you receive. I've since learned that demanding something for nothing and them claiming victim-hood when you don't get it is the most annoying form of entitlement thinking. That mind-set of wanting a company to give you something you didn't pay for is what hurts this and many other industries. That doesn't just hurt the industry, it hurts paying customers who end up paying more in order to pay for the freeloaders in the world.

1 up, 1 down

maxpontiac
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 12:15:40 PM

I fail to see how charging people for online play falls into the category of "right or wrong". If this is wrong, so is EA, Ubisoft, Activision and others for using my PS3 as a server. They didn't pay for my PS3 or my internet now did they? No. However, I paid them for a game. It's a two way street. I only hope you are this passionate about that as well. Or do you not see it as "wrong"? Something tells me you don't, and that would be sheer hypocrasy on your part.

No, what I see (with you) is someone with well over a dozen posts in this thread, all with some type of positive spin on the subject. That's taking up the banner and defending it quite well!! If I didn't know any better, I would say you were a developer or publisher. Please explain how this benefits YOU!!

Of course it is. But's who's demanding something for nothing? As I stated in my first post, I don't buy used games. But I do in some cases buy only one copy of a title. When it comes to good games, will I pay for additional online code? Perhaps, and only if it's worth it. In most cases, it will just take some money from any future DLC. Regardless, I have no problem not paying for a service that I don't feel is worth my money. Ask Microsoft!

Ironically, It seems only the 3rd party companies are taking this route. I have yet to hear of Sony speaking of this. Perhaps they understand the dire condition of the global economy. Now is not the time to nickle and dime the consumer base. Look at the fast food industry in the USA right now. Hello dollar menus!

What is hurting the game industry is it's lack of customer service. Everyone blames each other. Have a problem going online? It's your ISP's fault. Your ISP says's it's Sony's fault. Sony will say it's the Publisher's fault. It's anybody's guess on who the publisher will blame!! Of course, you can mix and match the players in this blame game to your heart's content!

Last edited by maxpontiac on 5/24/2010 12:20:51 PM

0 up, 0 down

rogergent
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 7:24:34 AM
Reply

highlander then what happens if for instance the compny does not use a dedicated server (MW2) they are taking money for something that is not even theirs to begin with

4 up, 1 down

maxpontiac
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 11:34:02 AM

Now wait.

It's part of the one way "relationship" offered by the game developers and/or publishers.

It's OK for them do that. /sarcasm..

2 up, 0 down

Highlander
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 6:39:20 PM

Just like Criterion did with Burnout Paradise the game may work in a peer to peer manner, but there are still servers that are involved to synchronize game sessions, track statistics and all manner of other aspects of your experience. For every example you think you can quote to disprove or discredit this, there are a dozen that prove it.

0 up, 1 down

DIsmael85
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 7:45:03 PM

You guys are acting like you have to pay in the first place for online. Well if you use Xbox live yes, but if you buy your games on the PS3 why is that such a big problem. If you buy a brand new game at 60 bucks you still get online free in the box. Same thing with this new situation. I don't understand how this is so hard for people to understand. You guys are making it seem like they are charging you extra to play online. It's for these reasons why I think this gaming generation is so f***ed up.

1 up, 2 down

Highlander
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 10:47:04 AM

@Maxpontiac

If you think that this 'one way' relationship between game buyers and game developers/publishers is unusual, please tell me how many other content providers (music, video, print, online) have a different relationship. Oh, wait, right, none do.

0 up, 0 down

maxpontiac
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 12:27:40 PM

Highlander -

Never said it was "unusual". I said it was a one way street.

So much to the fact that movie and music industry have nearly come to ruin by piracy. We can even get closer to home by looking at the decline of the PC gaming market, and the developer/publisher shift to consoles.

Imagine that. Failure to take care of your consumer base results to issues.

Oh, and before someone makes an assumption -- I do not pirate anything, nor condone it!

0 up, 0 down

FlyingKickPunch
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 9:14:03 AM
Reply

I for one could never buy a used game, because i can just imagine the person who owned it before me, eating McDonalds and reading the manual, getting greasy fingerprints on it, BLARF! And the ketchup! I hate ketchup!!
...I guess i have mild OCD, but still...yuck.

1 up, 2 down

S8N_666
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 10:43:34 AM
Reply

Good bye Renting, Gamefly is Proper Fuct

Last edited by S8N_666 on 5/23/2010 10:45:22 AM

1 up, 0 down

Darwin1967
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 12:54:45 PM

Can't wait to see how GF and GS decide to handle this slap in the face. I buy nearly 99% of my games through gamefly.

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 10:48:35 AM

This hasn't got anything to do with them - unfortunately for them. This is an arrangement between each individual unique PSN-ID/account holder and the game publisher/developer.

0 up, 0 down

Darwin1967
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 12:39:50 PM
Reply

These stupid floating ads are getting annoying, I can't read the article because the RDR ad is covering 1/4 of the left edge of the article. >:(

1 up, 0 down

realmadpuppy
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 12:55:01 PM

adblock if you are using firefox, I have never seen a floating ad on any site.

0 up, 0 down

laxpro2001
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 7:43:42 PM

yea i use google chrome and thankfully have never seen a floating ad on this site

0 up, 0 down

realmadpuppy
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 12:53:11 PM
Reply

This is not a problem, I have no problem waiting till the game drops down to a reasonable level to purchase. I would suggest everyone to wait to buy your games new, show EA and the other companies that retail sales will initially suffer and that people will wait to get a better deal on new rather than buy used. after all is said and done, they will still make the same money and only used sales will suffer.

2 up, 1 down

gabbyps3
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 2:27:28 PM
Reply

I think if publishers are gonna start charging for online play then games should go back to being 50 bucks. This is getting pretty crazy,I mean games are gonna 63 something with tax plus 5 to 10 dollars for online play...

3 up, 1 down

Highlander
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 6:40:24 PM

They're including the online play in the price of the game, this charge is only for those that buy the game used. If you pay EA for a game your online play is paid for in the price of the game. If a used purchaser comes along, they have to buy network access just like you did when you bought the game new.

1 up, 1 down

DIsmael85
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 7:36:29 PM
Reply

Man this was a lot of FUD to read through. First off, I think this is a great idea for Developers to do. If you buy a game new anyways this doesn't affect you, but since places like Gamestop are greedy and most everyone complains about them it's about time Devs stood up and started sticking it to them. I will say they should make more demos if this is the case. I buy my games new. All the time. I'm picky, but I still do it. As I'm sure most of you here who will buy games on your PS3 will buy them new as well, especially if it's a hit new title.

As for blaming Microsoft for this, I will just say that that is blatant fanboy-ism to the max. They didn't invent this type of business practice and if anyone thinks they did then go get educated. EA and co. were looking into ways in which they can make money as well as pay their employees for the work they do. Everyone who can't agree with this solution acts like there are robots sitting in the development studios cranking out games. The people want to get paid too. Just like any of us would if we were making games. Some of you guys should be ashamed to even consider yourself gamers. It's crap like this which makes those other fanboys call you Sony Fanboys.

Last edited by DIsmael85 on 5/23/2010 7:38:02 PM

2 up, 3 down

main_event05
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 10:15:01 PM

While MS isn't solely to blame I'd say an unporportionate amount of blame does belong to them. I think by now everyone here knows my motto, "Microsoft is ruining gaming".

2 up, 2 down

SirLoin of Beef
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 6:25:57 AM

"While MS isn't solely to blame I'd say an unporportionate amount of blame does belong to them."

No it doesn't.

0 up, 3 down

Xplaced
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 11:38:47 AM

"...but since places like Gamestop are greedy and most everyone complains about them it's about time Devs stood up and started sticking it to them."

The problem is they are not sticking it to Gamestop by doing this. They are sticking it to the end user, you, me. This hurts us more than it hurts Gamestop or people reselling used games. It really just hurts the buyer.

If they want to charge Gamestop $5 for every used game they sell, fine. That will actually hurt Gamestop and not the user, unless Gamestop then jacks the price up $5 to cover it. Which they very well might.

I don't know. I don't see how this does anything but prove that the game maker is greedy. Selling something used has never paid back the manufacturer that created the product, no matter what it was. I don't see why it should work that way with games, especially if it is not effecting game creator's servers in any way (and it is not). The user load stays the same because the original player gives up their online spot when they give the game to the person that bought it from them. It isn't like there are 2 people playing now, there's still just one.

0 up, 0 down

main_event05
Tuesday, May 25, 2010 @ 4:09:19 PM

how hurt would EA be if gamestop stopped carrying their titles?

0 up, 0 down

main_event05
Sunday, May 23, 2010 @ 10:12:21 PM
Reply

So how exactly will this work? Will it be like MGO and not use the PSN, but make me create an EA account or something? That's the only way i can see them keeping up with the codes. Also, should Sony step in and block this cause it seems that this would break Sony's promise of free online play.

2 up, 0 down

PaiNT_kinG
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 1:56:50 AM
Reply

so what if you buy a new game,enter the "one time code",get online and play.............then when other accounts on your ps3 wants to use it online also,what happens now WTF???
not to mention if a friend want to borrow it to play online and etc,etc,freaking complicated shiiiiiiit -_-

4 up, 0 down

Highlander
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 10:45:43 AM

Each PSN-ID holder is responsible for purchasing their own online play pass. What is complicated about that?

0 up, 0 down

Xplaced
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 11:27:23 AM
Reply

If I buy a game new, I get to play online because I paid to play online too. That makes sense.

If I sell my copy, I no longer play it online and the person that bought it from me should be able to play online because I already paid to play it online, I'm just giving my spot up for someone else by selling the game to them.

They cannot claim that they are having to cover server costs or anything like that, because it's still one person using the game, not two now. There's no "extra cost" to the game company's servers because one person is still all that's using it.

If I sell my car used, someone does not have to go to the manufacturer and pay $100 for a key that only they can use to drive the car. They key I had for it still works and doesn't cost the car manufacturer anything.

I really don't see the point in charging folks just to play online because they bought a used game. There is no good argument for this.

I do see a reason to charge someone for extra online content. Let's say, someone bought a new game and they use a key that comes with it that unlocks extras. They sell the game to a friend. The friend can't use the extras until they buy the $5 online pass (it needs to be $5, not $10). That makes more sense because it's extra content, not something that you should be able to do with the game out of the box, like simply play a multiplayer game online.

To those of you saying "I play single player, so this won't effect me", good for you I guess? I don't see how saying that is related to the article at all. I would think there are enough online folks that this will matter to them. It matters to me, as I mostly jump straight into multiplayer and sometimes completely ignore the single player portion of a game. For example, Bad Company 2 or Modern Warfare 2. I have barely touched their single player, and it will probably stay that way.

Last edited by Xplaced on 5/24/2010 11:32:06 AM

1 up, 0 down

Highlander
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 2:04:46 PM

You said "If I sell my copy, I no longer play it online and the person that bought it from me should be able to play online because I already paid to play it online, I'm just giving my spot up for someone else by selling the game to them."

Sorry, you are completely wrong. You purchased the game and that purchase allowed *you* the licensed user of the game to access the online portion. You are not purchasing a notional slot that is reserved forever for that particular copy of the game, you are purchasing a named user license for you (or whoever activates the game online). When you sell the game to someone else, you can sell the game disc, but that is all. The second hand buyer is responsible for acquiring their own license to use the online content.

All of you have to get this 'slot' concept out of your heads, it does not, never has and never will work that way. That's the simple and plain truth. I don't care if you like it, I don't care if it bugs you that someone points this out to you, but it is what it is and it completely invalidates the rest of your argument.

As Orvisman points out below, this will actually force GameStop and others to lower their price for used games. They might even start selling access codes with the used games for the $5 or $10 that he publisher charges online. That way they can still make the sale. Either way it will force used game prices down.

0 up, 1 down

Joltmar
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 11:28:37 AM
Reply

I know some peoples gonna get to disagree with me, but heres my two cents.

I really don't have the money to shell out for new games. So if someone wants me to play online with them I tend to rent games. We already know rental places are hardly keeping their heads above water thanks to netflix and gamefly. Movie gallery finally closing down fully.. Others are having trouble staying afloat thanks to block buster. Even their having trouble as well.

This in the end will leave places like netflix and gamefly to really rent from if this keep going as is.

So heres the thing, They might be thinking oh we're stopping use game sells go us, But they also are hurting people who rent. ALOT of people I know ethier gos to a friends how to check out multiplayer before grabbing a game or rent it.

Now if this goes through this won't happen. Thus they can lose sells.. Also people who rent games tend to play them both single and multiplayer and go hey you know I want to buy this game. This won't happen cause there will be no multiplayer. Sure they can pay the 5 or 10 dollars.. But who in their right mind would want to do that on a rental?

Also we can look at it this way for rentals.

Imagen going to test driver a car and lets see one of these features is locked out. No music, only can drive 20-30 mph .. or something like that. But if you pay the 5-10 dollars its unlocked.

Really would you want to do this?

1 up, 0 down

Xplaced
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 11:40:42 AM

That's a really good point Joltmar. I too wonder how they will work out rentals!

0 up, 0 down

Joltmar
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 11:51:14 AM

Thanks, I've had time to really think this out after watching my local movie gallery close down (their having their close out sell now, waiting for them to drop prices again and go in there and get movies and games X3)Which means in the end I'm gonna have to go through gamefly soon. The other rental place is more movies than games ;.;

0 up, 0 down

Xplaced
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 12:04:16 PM

Gone are the great days of just buying a game and playing it, it seems. Like they say in Red Dead Redemption, "The times are changing fast!"

It was awesome to buy Serious Sam or something like that on a PC and not have to worry about copy protection, a game code, or something like that. That being said, I've bought at least 4 copies of that game to play LAN parties with, though I knew I could copy it and do the same. It was $20 new, and awesome. There's a lot game sellers can learn from that.

Last edited by Xplaced on 5/24/2010 12:04:56 PM

0 up, 0 down

Joltmar
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 12:10:41 PM

Serious sam <3 I was thinking of getting the HD version when I get my new computer

0 up, 0 down

Orvisman
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 12:26:32 PM
Reply

There is one way how this might benfit those of us who buy used.

GameStop can't very well charge $55 for a used game that someone will have to pay $5-$10 extra to take online when the new game retails for $60, including the online code.

1 up, 0 down

DIsmael85
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 4:44:39 PM

That's exactly what the heck this plan was problem set up for. You pretty much nailed it. Gamestop will lower prices for those who want used. In the mean time to push those people who want the expensive used one they might as well buy the new one and give the company who made the game some cash in the process. EA and co making money is how you and me get new games each year. Without them making money you get nothing. It's as simple as that. Some on here just think their sh** is so good they just deserve everything for free. These companies have to make money, it's kind of logic sense.

0 up, 0 down

main_event05
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 7:48:29 PM

whats $60 times 2 mil?

then subtract how much it costs to make the game and distribute it, and finally take away the peanuts they pay the programmers and tell me these companies aren't making a profit.

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 11:44:57 PM

@Main Event.

EA just lost the better part of $700 million. So, yeah, they lose money.

0 up, 0 down

main_event05
Tuesday, May 25, 2010 @ 12:23:24 AM

fair enough, but i highly doubt that that $700 m was lost due to resells.

0 up, 0 down

Orvisman
Tuesday, May 25, 2010 @ 9:08:43 AM

Yes. And if you don't care about online play, you are really benefitting from this.

0 up, 0 down

miketaz
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 8:27:29 PM
Reply

This is total B.S.!!! I always rent my games before buying so that I'm not waisting my $60 bucks on a crappy game, which I have done in the past. So now I can't even try out the multiplayer because its not something I purchased. Man Gamefly is goign to loose alot of subscribers because of this. I mean we pay enough for the game and then most of the time another game comes out and then the old one collects dust or gets traded in for a new one. So why would we want to rent the online service? If they do start charging then I EXPECT to never see any lag, never see any cheaters and there BETTEr be support for any issues 23/7. Then and ONLY then would I pay for online multiplayer games.
This is really going to make people only play like 1 maybe 2 games online then. Greedy developers better try a different approach to this, especially now that Sony will start charging for there PSN!!! If this keeps up with paying top dollar for games and then to get online and play with others who paid top dollar then I might just have to give it up and sell my PS3 and buy a Blue Ray DVD player.

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Tuesday, May 25, 2010 @ 10:32:09 AM

Yeah, go back to the PS2 and bargain bin games dude, why not?

Or, you could read reviews and try games with demos before buying the ones you really like.

Sony is not going to start charging for PSN - you are trolling.

0 up, 0 down

whooka
Tuesday, May 25, 2010 @ 11:06:48 AM
Reply

AWWWWWWWWWWWWW, a potential, already included for free feature may turn to a pay service and people are upset? Was one reason you bought a PS3 over an X-Box that PSN was free???? Now you know how those of us who bought a PS3 because it could run Linux feel (or you may in the future). I myself have never played a game online and never really intend to so even if all online play cost something I could care less as I DON'T USE IT. So those who are upset please just take a minute to put yourself in the position of those who did use the Other O/S feature but had it taken away. Not so much fun, is it? Do you feel betrayed? hahahaha...What are they charging you for anyways? They aren't the ISP, you still need that to play onlines. They just should not charge for updates, or force one to upgrade their firmware and remove features, to get patches and updates for games, esp ones not actually made by Sony. This other stuff who cares, they're all money grubbers.

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Tuesday, May 25, 2010 @ 11:16:06 AM

Hey Whooka, why let the truth get in the way of your rant?

Online is free regardless. This only affects buyers of used games and it's not limited to PS3. This has nothing to do with Sony or Microsoft charging for online, it's purely the developer/publisher wanting their slice of the pie when it comes to used game sales. But hey, you go ahead and aimlessly flame away.

This has zip to do with Sony, and zip to do with OtherOS.

You asked what they are charging for, if you bothered to read any of the posts in this thread, or the article itself instead of reacting first, you would know the answer to that.

Oh, and by the way, executive compensation happens whether or not a corporation loses money. As it happens EA posted a $677 million loss, so sure point at the executive salaries, but let's not forget the 1000s of peons that EA employs who are under threat because the company loses money.

Last edited by Highlander on 5/25/2010 11:17:48 AM

0 up, 0 down

whooka
Tuesday, May 25, 2010 @ 11:08:28 AM
Reply

Highlander, you're right, EA lost alot of money and is really hurting...

Lawrence F Probst III
Total Compensation
$12.59 mil (#114)

5-Year Compensation Total
$81.76 mil

Lawrence F Probst III has been CEO of Electronic Arts (ERTS) for 15 years. Mr. Probst III has been with the company for 22 years .The 56 year old executive ranks 6 within Software & Services

0 up, 0 down

Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories cheats	PSP
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas cheats	PS2
Ghost Recon: Future Soldier cheats	PS3
Prototype cheats	PS3
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories cheats	PS2
Red Dead Redemption cheats	PS3
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories cheats	PSP
Dragon Age: Origins cheats	PS3
Crash Bandicoot 3: Warped cheats	PS1
Aedis Eclipse: Generation of Chaos cheats	PSP

Playstation 3

Playstation 4

PSP

Playstation Vita

Playstation 2

Playstation

Other

PSX Extreme

Site Stats

More Publishers Looking To Charge For Online Play

Comments (123 posts)

Leave a Comment

Latest Updates

Popular Cheats

Recent Reviews

Recent Previews

Popular Sections

Extras

Grid 2 review	PS3
The Last Of Us review	PS3
Remember Me review	PS3
Call of Juarez: Gunslinger review	PS3
Fuse review	PS3
Resident Evil: Revelations review	PS3
Metro: Last Light review	PS3
Zombie Tycoon II: Brainhov's Revenge review	PS3
Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon review	PS3
Star Trek: The Video Game review	PS3

South Park: The Stick of Truth preview	PS3
Murdered: Soul Suspect preview	PS3
The Bureau: XCOM Declassified preview	PS3
Time and Eternity preview	PS3
Ride to Hell: Retribution preview	PS3
Call of Juarez: Gunslinger preview	PS3
Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon preview	PS3
Spartacus Legends preview	PS3
Payday 2 preview	PS3
DUST 514 preview	PS3