PS3 News: Sony Reveals PSN Pass Program - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Sony Reveals PSN Pass Program

It was a rumor for a day or two and now it has been confirmed as fact.

Sony has confirmed the PlayStation Network pass, which will debut alongside the launch of Insomniac's upcoming shooter, Resistance 3. The pass is a new online initiative, which - unsurprisingly - will be for games with online capabilities. Any games that are part of the program will come bundled with a code that can be used once, and grants users "full online access for that title." Sony says it allows them to "accelerate our commitment to enhancing premium online services across our first party game portfolio."

We've been seeing something similar from EA Sports (and THQ) for quite some time. Such online pass programs are viewed as a way to combat the sale of used games, as publishers have often complained of never seeing any profit from that massive secondhand industry. No further details were available for Sony's PSN pass, but you can expect the full unveiling soon.

Tags: psn pass, resistance 3, sony, playstation network

7/6/2011 10:16:10 PM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (256 posts)

Doppel
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 10:26:01 PM
Reply

I hope this brings down the insane price of used games. EB games in Canada has $55 for Black Ops. I mean, really now?

Agree with this comment 11 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 10:26:58 PM

The CoD games are nearly full price for years, it's awful.

Agree with this comment 21 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Milonakis
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 10:29:28 PM

what is the ratio of 55 dollars in monopoly money to american dollars?

Agree with this comment 6 up, 9 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 10:34:39 PM

The first MW didn't see a price drop until 2 was released and even than it was still $30+.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 10:53:21 PM

Give it time guys. Don't be surprised if in a couple years, or less, Gamestops will be found handing out spare copies of CoD games as bag stuffers for their Rewards Card members. I'm sure once the CoD bubble pops there'll be so many copies of CoD floating around they wouldn't fetch even $10 in resell.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:02:14 PM

@milonakis
In case you didn't notice, the American Dollar is balls. It's been weaker than Canada's dollar for months now.

Agree with this comment 12 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

StangMan80
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:44:13 PM

COD4:MW is $40 at some places. Some stores have games that came out last year priced at full price($60).
COD games are always overpriced. EVEN AT LAUNCH!

But most games should be at $40. $60 is just to much for what most games are giving us. I wish the price of games depended on the quality. every game comes out with $60. it sucks! EA sports games should be a about 30. BF3, U3, TR, they are games worth 60. all movie games like Cars, transformers should 29.99.
I know the developers and publishers have to make money but dang. I bet you would make more if you get more people to buy your game at a lower, DECENT price.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Dancemachine55
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:37:23 AM

God, I would love for games in Australia to be around $60. They're $110 right now for a new release, and the Aussie dollar can get you $1.06 US. Seriously, $500 bucks for a launch PS3 woulda been nice, it was $999 here in Australia way back in early 2007.

That's why retail is failing here in Australia, cos everyone else around the world is selling stuff cheaper, including games, so everyone tends to buy online now.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 3:03:19 AM

Where you living, Dance? I'm in QLD and, as long as you're in a city you can get most new games between 80 and 90 dollars. I got both L.A. Noire and inFamous 2 two days after their respective releases for $78 apiece.

After exchange rates are taken into consideration, that's what, a $21-ish difference? Small wonder that people are taking their business offshore.

EDIT: Checked your profile... Sydney? Damn... that's the biggest city of the lot. How is so expensive?

Last edited by Lawless SXE on 7/7/2011 3:05:14 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Doppel
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:56:27 AM

@Milonakis

55 CAD = 57.03 USD (Google)

Ha! :P

I'm also talking about a USED copy of Black Ops. Really sickening price of used games. With this, retailers will be forced to lower their prices because consumers won't pay $45 for used when an $5-$10 pass on top of it.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

hiverious
Sunday, July 10, 2011 @ 11:15:52 AM

Lawless, I'm in Sydney and I walked into a JB to look for Shadows of the Damned and found it for $100. Not really the $79 for launch I was hoping for. Given that prices rise a couple of weeks after launch, I'm wondering what it will end up costing.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 10:26:22 PM
Reply

This is not going to go over well. I'm glad I don't play games online.

Agree with this comment 13 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Cesar_ser_4
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:15:08 AM

world, dont say it like they charge those online passes after the game has dropped down in price... oh sh*t

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Cesar_ser_4
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:15:09 AM

world, dont say it like they charge those online passes after the game has dropped down in price... oh sh*t

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 4:06:54 AM

Do you often buy used games, World? If so, where? On the web?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 3:33:50 PM

Ebay

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Milonakis
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 10:26:34 PM
Reply

Bummer, but i guess it's not a big deal, as long as you buy your ps exclusives on day one like you should.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 7 down Disagree with this comment

Qubex
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 3:23:24 AM

ManBearPig, it is still an unnecessary cost!

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 4:08:11 AM

You don't have to buy it day one either, as long as it's new...

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:15:06 AM

Beamboom, you can buy used as well, just make sure that the price you pay includes the online pass. It's up to the retailer to price the game competitively with a new game purchase to attract used game sales.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:58:12 AM

That's true of course Highlander, but now you talk about professional retailers. like Gamestop.
The seller of a used game might just as well be the former owner directly, selling their old games for 7-8 bucks.
Yes you only have to buy the pass via the PSN when you get back home, but that's really beside the point here.


Last edited by Beamboom on 7/7/2011 11:59:22 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:14:48 PM

I don't think it's beside the point in this discussion at all Beamboom since to play multi-player you must have access to the network and buying the online pass is a simple transaction. With regard to individual sellers of used games, they represent a much, much smaller slice of revenue compared to Gamestop and actually they typically sell their used games for less than the GameStops of the world do in any case. In the long run, it may drive the value of their used games down a little, but it won't have anything like the effect it has on the prices at gamestop. Either way though, private sellers account for a small fraction of the total 'pie' of used game sales.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Danny007
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 10:31:50 PM
Reply

I really don't see the online pass as a way to combat the sale of used games. To me its just a way to rip off gamers twice as much and sadly in some cases those gamers are ones that can't afford that 60 dollar price tag.

Agree with this comment 9 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 10:36:48 PM

It's not meant to rid the world of used sales, its merely a tool to help mitigate the publishers and developers losses. In that case it seems to being working.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

godsman
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 10:53:09 PM

I agree. This PSN Pass doesn't add more value for gamers, it is just a way to take more money from gamers that can't afford the full $60.

This reminds me of Sony's code to keep bootleg movies from being played on the PS3 after 2010. I forgot the name of this code. It doesn't protect their investments, the bootlegger just play their file from a new source to play the movie. Sony won't advertise such thing, "Now fully anti-piracy protected to ensure consumers spend money to buy our blu-rays", because moves like this may hurt their sales.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:14:07 AM

If you buy your game new, there's no impact on you. If you buy your game used, make sure that you don't get shafted by the used game retailer. If they charge you so much for the game that by the time you get the online pass it costs more than the new game, who's fault is that?

Agree with this comment 3 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 10:35:39 PM
Reply

I don't mind this. I buy Sony games new anyways. Come to think about it I can't remember the last used game I bought.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 10:47:14 PM

I don't need my FPS games new, even exclusives.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 10:52:07 PM

I used to buy all my games used too but I started to think about my games like I do my music. If I enjoy a certain band and want to support them I'll buy their records new instead of used. How else are the people who create the art we enjoy going to get paid to continue giving us the art we enjoy?

Last edited by Jawknee on 7/6/2011 10:53:19 PM

Agree with this comment 11 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Killa Tequilla
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 10:55:58 PM

Me and you are on the same boat. I buy my games new all the time. Since 2000 I have always purchases all my discs new. The only game I have ever bought used this year was CoD4, only because one of my buddies told me to. I had already bought the game in 07 and lost it along the way. This only affects the people who buy their games used from gamestop and dont help the developers one bit. I think now... well start seeing more quality games since developers get more money. More money, more business. Is this for every new game on Sonys machhine from now on?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

godsman
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:01:21 PM

I buy mine new as well. This doesn't bother as much as the pre-order DLC. Now I have to preorder all my games just to get the complete experience?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:29:20 PM

Sometimes I want to try the game, but not support the developers in any way :)

Agree with this comment 8 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:00:58 AM

@godsman

i just go and preorder at gamestop to get the code at launch, put it in my ps3, return the game with a believable excuse (i'm planning to get the CE), then buy it at a store with a much better deal. This is how i got killzone 3, la noir, and socom 4 for 60 bucks each but it also came with a 20 dollar gaming coupon for each game along with a free 20 dollar game (resonance of fate) with la noire.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:42:42 AM

Wow John, that's a lot of scheming and jiving, too much work for me. Say did you ever get Mass Effect 2 to work in your PS3? Sometimes you just have to try 600 times and then bam it works forever.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 4:08:06 AM

@world
yeah, it works on and off. but once i get past the first loading screen before the main menu, i start fearing all the other loading screens that the game seem to have a lot of.

theres one thing i cant avoid now though. whenever i get to the end mission loading screen and get a trophy, it freezes without fail. i end up getting a corrupt save progress but my gamesave and profile is still fine. i guess it just corrupts my trophy progress which i gave up on since i wont be playing this game again anyway. its a pain to get started already so why torture myself by playing on insanity.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

jimmyhandsome
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 10:38:57 PM
Reply

I'm sorry but this is so lame. I for one usually buy my games new, but I don't see the huge crime in the used game market.

The publisher gains nothing from all the money Gamestop, Amazon, and others make but this "online pass" is just a way the developer to get a piece of the "used game market" pie.

Resistance 3 was on my "wait and see list" or I was going to rent it through Gamefly to try it out first, simply because of the sheer number of games coming out later this year. If I can't play multiplayer unless I pay $10 or whatever I might have to pass.

Last edited by jimmyhandsome on 7/6/2011 10:39:52 PM

Agree with this comment 8 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 10:44:14 PM

No one said it was a crime. As I said above, it's a tool to help the deserving developers and publishers mitigate their loss'. There is nothing wrong with a business trying to protect their bottom line. Especially when it's a business we are supposed to support if we want to continue enjoying this hobby.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

godsman
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 10:57:39 PM

Keep in mind, this is only for multi-players only. The single player campaign will still be free. I don't see why you can't still "try" the game by renting.

I hardly see anyone rent to play online anyway. Many rent to play offline for the story and plot then return it the next week.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

jimmyhandsome
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 10:57:40 PM

Right but it affects other things: in my case, I pretty much shouldn't bother renting it now because I'm not going to pay $10 to play online while not owning the game. Think about the money they make from selling the game once, then an additional $10 per renter, or in the case of Gamestop and other trade-in stores per person who buys it used and pays for the pass.

Just annoying for those of us who were on the fence about this game. I could careless if they did this with Uncharted 3 because I already have it preordered at Amazon.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

jimmyhandsome
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:02:45 PM

@ godsman

I've rented games before and played plenty online. And in the case with FPS, most of my time is spent in multiplayer.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:14:16 PM

Jimmy, this doesn't, and shouldn't have an impact on the purchaser of used games.

Look at the situation where GameStop sells a used copy of a game at $5 off the new price. That's a bloody awful deal in the first place, but it's $55 that goes only to GameStop, not the publisher or developer. With the online pass, Gamestop can't charge the same amount because the $10 online pass makes the used game $5 more expensive than the new one. So Gamestop has to either bundle a new online pass at the same price point as before, or drop the price another $10 to compensate used buyers for the cost of the online pass. That doesn't hurt the buyer, they are still paying the same amount. It helps the developer and publisher, and the only one coming out with a loss is the profiteer in the middle who bought very low and sold very high. In fact, this online pass system should have a triple benefit for gamers, it will justify game servers being available for longer times, and help pay for future patches or new games. All in all, this is a positive move for everyone except Gamestop and the various game rental companies.

Agree with this comment 9 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:14:48 PM

It's still going to have a campaign you can play if you rent it.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:04:03 AM

@jimmy

do what i do man, i basically use the same 60 bucks to rent games from gamestop. in the end, there will be no cost to you at all. you get to try games that you want for 7 days, i believe thats a lot longer than other rental places and still manage to get all your money back. plus since its gamestop, i dont mind screwing them over. if i like a game, i usually buy it new at another store at usually a lower price.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gabriel013
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:11:02 AM

Actually Highlander, I see this hurting the person who bought it new and now wants to trade it in. Whereas previously then may have expected to get $30 of the $60 back when trading in, they now may only get $20 back as the stores like Gamestop will not want to eat into their profit margins.

Dropping the trade in value to little over 30% original value (or even less) rather than 50% could be enough to stop gamers from buying the title in the first place if they were on the fence about it to begin with. That will hurt the industry, not help it.

The games industry needs to pull it's head out of it's ass and start acting like every other normal industry. You are not entitled to a recurrent revenue stream from the same damn product, just like books, movies, clothes, cards..... etc....

You should be selling 1 game and 1 lifetime online experience (or whilever they maintain the servers) for 1 price. Regardless of how many different users get the benefit throughout the life of the game.
If person 1 buys it he can play ot forever online. Person 2 buys it from person 1 and HE then gets to play it forever. There is NO detrimental impact AT ALL for the publisher/developer.

They shouldn't even be thinking of or care about how many hands their product passes through unless it's to realise that if their game is traded a lot then they've made a shitty game.

Last edited by Gabriel013 on 7/7/2011 1:11:58 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:24:30 AM

@gabriel

then used game market will take a hit. less people selling their games, less profit from price gougers like gamestop. They're going to have to make compromises if they want used game sales. either lower used game prices or increase trade in values in order to keep their used game sales going. This is a better deal for customers.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

jimmyhandsome
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 8:50:13 AM

@ john

Ha, that seems like a lot of work but clever nonetheless.

@Highlander

I don't know how you think that this won't affect people who buy used games. Keep in mind that while Gamestop is by far the biggest of the "trade-in" shops, Amazon, Bestbuy, and I believe even Walmart now all have some form of game trade ins. I've actually used Amazon's a couple times. Titles that support this online pass usually don't have a good trade in value (Medal of Honor comes to mind). All of these places won't necessarily just drop the price of used games that have the "PSN pass" by $10. This shouldn't affect me for the most part, because like I said alot of my games were bought as D1P (so obviously new). But this makes you think twice about games that you are unsure about and may want to try out.

However, when I first picked up my PS3 last year I picked up Uncharted, Killzone 2, and Motorstorm all used off of eBay. It was a quick and cheap way for me to jump right in with alot of games that I missed out on. I definately would've thought twice about buying used and then buying an online pass to play Killzone online though. And as I've mentioned before this kills any chance of me renting titles that support this feature.

It just seems like a sleezy way for the publisher to make more money off of a product they already sold. Yes they have online servers to support, but if they don't want people to buy their games used, or trade in, then make a game that has the longevity, replayability, and future DLC support that makes the consumer want to keep the game forever. Don't make the consumer cringe at the thought of more fees/passes they'll have to shell out.

I read through most of the comments and I'm honestly pretty surprised about the amount of people that are not only OK with this but think its somehow "good". When Activision came out with that stupid "CoD Elite" monthly subscription myself and others were all over the thought of it being ridiculous and a rip-off for paying for features that the developer should already be offering. Somehow I feel if this were Activision coming out with an online pass everyone would being singing a much different tune.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 9:04:35 AM

I agree with Jimmy here. This is nothing more then trying to take money from used game sales. A "Pass" shouldn't be required to play online. There's no true reason for it to be honest.

It really only hampers gamers who are not as fortunate as many of us to be able to go out and buy a game new. Or those teenagers who love online play but can't because mom or dad couldn't afford $60+ just that $40-45.

I could understand voucher or pass of some sort just to verify that you have a real copy of the game and not pirated one..But this crap just for online play is just bad and shows they're not thinking about all gamers just the few that can afford to buy full priced games...

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:40:31 AM

JImmy and Slugga,

Sorry, but you're both wrong, and I think you're allowing your own bias to cloud your understanding of the issue. But, having played in this argument many times before to no avail, I know that when people draw lines in the sand on this issue, they will not budge, no matter how much logic, fact or rationality is brought to the discussion. I get that it's a sensitive topic for some, but really and truly, if you can't see that the whole concept of online passes is aimed squarely at used game retailers and their unproductive price gouging, then there's no point discussing further.

Jimmy,

One simple point. When Gamestop sells a used game, the publisher incurs nothing but additional cost. Gamestop makes free and clear money. The used purchaser pays nothing to the developer or publisher, and yet expects to use the publisher's game servers. Sorry, but that's simply not right.

Last edited by Highlander on 7/7/2011 10:41:49 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

jimmyhandsome
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:17:15 AM

Highlander,

I think we both agree that Gamestop is crap. Plain and simple I don't shop there and I have *never* bought a "newly released" used game from them ($55 price point I'm talking about, not bargain bin). I think it's awful that they charge THAT much for a used game and I never understood why people wouldn't cough up the extra $5 for a new one that supports the developer. The *only* positive that this online pass provides is possibly lowering the price of some used titles at places that price gouge like Gamestop. But even then I expect Gamestop to casually mention that you can't access online play to people purchasing used games. If I remember correctly when EA first started doing this Gamestop not only didn't charge less than the $55, but barely mentioned it to consumers. This resulted in plenty of PO'd gamers.

However, they are far from the only business that will be affected by this pass. Because of their sucess with the "used game" market, other companies, including my beloved Amazon, have adopted similar trade-in policies. Its something thats convienient for those of us who want to trade-in a disappointing title for a giftcard to buy future games (usually new). Alot of people adopt this model, if only for affordability. I tend to keep most of my games but every now and then I trade a game in I know I won't ever play again if the price is right. For example, I bought Portal 2 for $35 new off of Amazon when they dropped the price, beat it, and recently just sent it back for a $27 giftcard for a future purchase. Because it had little replayability I felt like it was a decent decision on my end. Especially when a slew of games comes out this fall. I also recently signed up for a subscription to Gamefly. Renting games will now solely be for SP campaign only if more titles implement this "online pass". If this becomes the norm (which seems to be happening) the trade-in value of such games decrease, and any chance of me renting and/or picking up the title used later on becomes burdersome by paying for $10 to access online play. You may not get much use out of multiplayer, but myself and others certainly do.

The only argument I've seen for this sort of pass being good is that "Gamestop is evil, and this will cut into their bottom line". Which I agree with in a sense, however there are alot of other businesses that this will affect, as well as the gamer who can't afford to buy every single game new. Hell, I've must've saved HUNDREDS of dollars this generation alone by trading in certain games and buying games used from the bargain bin or eBay. This may not affect some of you, but I'm sure it affects plenty of people who buy games.

And while I agree with your example of "James" buying a game used, and not establishing a relationship with the Publisher or developer, there is one flaw in the argument. Since John already paid for the title (and access to the online servers) why should someone else pay AGAIN for the same copy? I mean, its not like John AND James are playing online simultaneously. The servers are suddenly not supporting more people, still just one. And the publisher should have already received money from John, so why should they be compensated AGAIN? This is double-dipping, my friend.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:35:25 AM

Because John paid for his own personal service, no one elses. In the John and James example, James has to establish his own customer relashionship with the publisher.

John isn't paying for someone else's game when he buys the game, he's paying for his own. You're not reserving a spot or notional 'slot' on a server with an online pass, you're paying for a service that you consume. If I buy an online pass, and use it, it's consumed, and I can't pass it on to someone else.

If you want to share your 'slot' then share your PSNID, though personally I absolutely do not recommend doing that.

In some ways this is actually a natural progression of things. In the case of used books (which people almost always raise in this discussion), a used book is less attractive than a new one, because as a physical article it shows sign of use, it is less valuable and so when a buyer pays $3 for a book instead of the retail $10 price, the publisher loses very little because the used buyer was unlikely to fork over the $10 anyway. With used games though there are two problems for publishers. 1, games on BluRay rarely show any sign of use, and even if they do have minor scratches the game on the disc is still in pristine condition, there is no perceived loss of quality of the game due to it being used before. Secondly, used games sell at retail for prices that are really very close to the new price. $55 used and $60 new is common place. It's not like a used book that sells for a mere fraction of the original price. In effect what the online pass does is restore some of the natural justice of the used product by making the used product less attractive (and less valuable) than the new one.

The copyright folks recognize this thing called the doctrine of first sale that basically allows a buyer to sell a copyrighted work on to whoever they want because once it's sold to the original buyer the publisher can't control who the thing sells to. However the entire principle of first sale is based on the physical deterioration of the used article which actually limits the attractiveness of the used article and maintains a level of new sales. It's a balancing act that is recognized in the doctrine of first sale. With game disks, there is no deterioration, and so the balance is disrupted heavily. The Online pass functionally restores the balance by making a used game less attractive to buyers if the game doesn't have an online pass with it.

As much as people want to complain about this it is actually a way of restoring a balance that has been heavily disrupted by rampant price gouging among used game retailers and the lack of physical difference between the new and used articles.

Last edited by Highlander on 7/7/2011 11:36:53 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

jimmyhandsome
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:50:52 AM

I agree with you that $55 for a used copy is pratically a scam, especially considering there is usually hardly any ware or tear. But as I've mentioned Gamestop is no longer the only place you can buy "cheaper" used games from. You can go on eBay or even Amazon (from users) and pay close to less than half the cost of a game used about a month or two after it comes out. And because the game is most likely in great condition after only a short time of play as you mentioned, this is a great way for people to try out different games they can't afford to pay full price for.

You either don't ever buy used games, or you don't play online much. Because I don't see how you'd be happy this is being implemented in the industry now. It'll be a real shame once Nintendo and Microsoft follow suit with this.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:56:39 AM

It's nothing to do with the console makers, it's the game publishers. All most all game publishers use online passes now, across all platforms (well, excluding Wii because it has an incredibly weak online offering). The online pass isn't an invention of Sony, it was one of the various multi-platform devs who implemented this first. 360 players are just as affected by the online pass as PS3 players.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

jimmyhandsome
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:10:27 PM

I know that. I meant them as first party publishers for their titles.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Sancho
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 10:49:01 PM
Reply

I'm not against this in the least bit. I primarily buy games new. And when they are used, its usually something you wont be playing online. Plus I could just go to block buster and snag one of the passes they leave in the cases normally. And even when they don't leave them in, I know half the people that work there so I can get one anyhow. It obviously hasn't bothered EA fans.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 10:50:22 PM
Reply

Well, as many games I buy not just for playing, but collection purposes too, I got a feeling this will hurt me somewhat.

So now I'll have no other choice but to only buy a new game once it's price drops to $25 or less, or at $30 only during a B2,G1F deal somewhere.

I can wait them out and will, even if it's 2-3 years later by the time I actually get it.



Last edited by BikerSaint on 7/6/2011 10:51:29 PM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:09:10 AM

it shouldnt hurt you that much if you're buying it for a collection. usually then game prices go down, at least used game prices, their online community is pretty much dead. just like crysis 2 on ps3. i cant get a bronze trophy because NOONE is playing the other game modes at all. if i'm collecting games, which i want to, i think multiplayer would be the farthest from my mind, at least with older games are concerned. if its a newer game, i'll just buy it new since they go on sale close to launch anyway. i mean they had portal 2 at kmart for 35 bucks about a couple of weeks from launch.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:03:54 PM
Reply

Good. Now Sony first party games, which are awesome, btw, will actually get money for various users accessing their network.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 6 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:09:41 PM
Reply

I see this as good news. The publisher/developer gets more of the revenue generated by their game, gamestop and others can gouge use purchasers less than normal, and used game buyers only lose out if they're still prepared to pay $5 off the new price for a used game without a new online pass.

Seriously, this kind of program is really clever because it's not anti-consumer, it's anti-used game gouger.

The whole point of the online pass is very simple. If we have two gamers, John and James. John is one of those guys that buys his games new, right when they launch and he loves to play online. So he goes and get's Slapdown3 and plays it into the ground for a month, then as he find a newer game is commanding his attention, he decides to trade in the game. John paid for the game, which included an online pass code. He established himself as an online customer of the publisher of the game, for that game. The purchase price of the new game includes provision for the network and game server resources that the publisher has to maintain for John to play his purchase online.

Now, along comes James and pops into his local GameStop and buys that copy of Slapdown 3 that John traded for $5 off the new price (logical as ever). He get's home and realizes to his horror that the game has an online passcode, and it's already been used! Oh no!

James' problem is that he doesn't have a customer relationship with the publisher of Slapdown3 for his playing of the game online. James paid GameStop $55 for the game, but as far as the game publisher knows, that copy of the game belongs to John, and John paid them for his access, no one else's. The publisher provides network and server resources and James hasn't paid anything for that, so he has no access. So James heads online and finds he can buy the online pass for $10. Having already paid for the game - which he can use in single player - James decides he has no choice since GameStop won't give him his $55 back, to buy the online pass for $10.

That used game at $55 from GameStop is suddenly not so much of a bargain. James would have been better off buying the game new on Amazon for $56 and waiting for delivery. The effect of that is that Gamestop has to reduce the price of the traded game to compensate for the cost of the online pass. It's not the publisher's fault that GameStop are gouging used game purchasers. the publisher has costs associated with each online use of their game that have to be covered. Each online player is a customer of theirs, and with the online pass, each online player pays the publisher for their software.

If GameStop continue selling such games at $5 off the retail price then players need to put pressure on GameStop to reduce the price and/or throw in an online pass with used games. It's only fair to the publisher and developer to pay them for the use of their game online. It's not anti-consumer at all. the trouble is that it's apparently easier to whine about the online pass than it is to protest about Gamestop gouging used game buyers. Online Passes should reduce the price of used games for everyone, whether you use the game online or not. If used game retailers continue their old pricing practice and do not bundle an online pass, is it really the publisher's fault if gamers are stupid enough to buy the used games without the online pass at that price?

It's about time that some of that free money that GameStop and others made from selling BluRay used games (which are generally completely scratch free) went instead to the developer and publisher of the game. At least that way when someone buys a game whether used or new they know that they are supporting the developer/publisher. That can't be a bad thing.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 7 down Disagree with this comment

PAKINIPS
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 4:45:48 AM

Can't borrow games off my friends anymore then....

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

thj_1980
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 9:59:02 AM

Yeah but the only thing these online passes do is that you can't share games that you want to play online now. These online passes are only good for business not consumer friendly.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:42:50 AM

Both of you are missing the point, but that's fine, it's rare that people get this point because it conflicts with their ability to buy games for $5 off the retail price.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

PAKINIPS
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 4:19:18 PM

I always buy new, but I like to borrow games off friends and lend a few of mine to them.
They would need my PSN on their ps3 if they want to play online
That's annoying

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

A2K78
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:15:02 PM
Reply

"Any games that are part of the program will come bundled with a code that can be used once"


So if your PS3 out craps on you and you have no choice but to replace the console or you switch PSN accounts, its obvious that you're screwed.

Seriously though, these online passes will in no way stop the poliferation of used games and just as the war on grey market games turned out to be failure(and sony ended up conceding), so will the war on used games also be a failure.

"No one said it was a crime. As I said above, it's a tool to help the deserving developers and publishers mitigate their loss'. There is nothing wrong with a business trying to protect their bottom line. Especially when it's a business we are supposed to support if we want to continue enjoying this hobby."

How is a developer mitigating their losses when in fact a used game is a game that already have been bought new and resold(e.g. the developer have already seen money from it)? I mean you act as if a used game is something that have pirated.

Look at the book publishing, music and movie industries...you don't seem them having a fit over the sale of used products and you know why? They clearly understands that the used market is a much better alternative to piracy.




Agree with this comment 6 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:24:49 PM

As usual you completely misconstrue the matter. It's a PSN redemption code that allows you to download the activation key for online modes. Once you use it, it's activated for your PSNID on any PS3 you activate using your PSNID. It's a one time use code in that it's not transferrable to other PSNIDs.

I'm not even going to try to discuss the whole "How is a developer mitigating their losses when in fact a used game is a game that already have been bought new and resold(e.g. the developer have already seen money from it)?" thing, because I know that you don't want to 'get' or understand the point. Suffice to say, you are wrong.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:25:15 PM

"So if your PS3 out craps on you and you have no choice but to replace the console or you switch PSN accounts, its obvious that you're screwed."

Wrong. The online pass will be on your PSN download list. If your PS3 craps out you simply have to reload load the pass from your list after you set up your existing account on your new PS3. This is how all these passes have worked.

EDIT: Highlander beat me too the first part so I'll comment on the second as well....

"How is a developer mitigating their losses when in fact a used game is a game that already have been bought new and resold(e.g. the developer have already seen money from it)?"

That's like saying Gibson guitars didn't lose out on a potential sale because I sold my old guitar to my friend who was in the market for a new one because I already bought the one I am selling to him.

Logic fail.

Last edited by Jawknee on 7/6/2011 11:28:59 PM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:44:06 PM

What do you play Jaw? My father-in-law plays bass, electric and flattop, but mostly bass. Actually he's awesome on the bass guitar. He's had a number of different ones, I believe he has a couple of Gibsons. Actually we sold two of his Fenders last year, a sunburst Stratocaster (US made) and a bluburst Telecaster (US made). It was actually sad to see them go into their shippers. I can't play a lick myself, but I can admire anyone with the talent.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:30:04 AM

Oooh, I'm glad you asked. I get giddy when people ask that question. :)

I play guitar and bass. I have played guitar since I was 14 and picked up bass when I was 21 so I could join my band. Now I swapped. I play guitar for them now. I have had many guitars through the years. Some sold, one stolen. Currently I have one American Fender Telecaster Deluxe(cherry burst)an Gibson SG special Faded(heritage cherry stained)and an Gibson SG Standard(also heritage cherry but with lacquer)with ivory binding on the neck and the acrylic trapezoid position-marker inlays with chrome pick up covers. It's the best guitar I have ever owned. Just bought it too. As for the bass I have two Danelectro DC bass' which aren't known for their build quality or tone. Just the classic look and light weight. I also have a white Ernieball Musicman Stingray bass. That thing is a beast. Best bass I have ever played or owned. I play my bass out of a 8X10 Ampeg cab with the Ampeg SVT-Classic power tube head. For my guitar amp I am looking into buying a Mesa Boogie power tube Triple Rectifier or maybe a Vox.

It's always sad when one has to part with their guitars. Especially ones as nice as your father-in-law's. Both of those are fantastic instruments to have. I had to sell a Fender Jazz bass and a Stratocaster before when I was in collage to make the rent. :(

Last edited by Jawknee on 7/7/2011 12:32:46 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

JMO_INDY
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:44:26 AM

The Titan Courageous (Jawknee's band) LOOK IT UP O_O Absolutely incredible direction and fantastic craftsmanship, and the vocals are out of this world. Highly recommended. Oh BTW Jawknee that CD you gave me was stolen from me at school :( Sorry, but I did get the songs onto my computer before hand.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:56:37 AM

My father-in-law has more guitars than he can ever play, but for whatever reason he had his eye on another one, and sold the two Fenders to pay for it. I'll have to find out more about what bass he plays. The one he plays the most is an old instrument, but has a really smooth, rich sound. He's actually originally a Rockabilly guy (in the hall of fame no less), but these days, he plays more for pleasure than anything else. He used to tour back in the day (honky-tonk), but had to give that up as the lifestyle wasn't compatible with his marriage. These days he plays mostly a mix of older country and rockabilly.

Last edited by Highlander on 7/7/2011 12:57:44 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gabriel013
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:21:21 AM

Jawknee-"That's like saying Gibson guitars didn't lose out on a potential sale because I sold my old guitar to my friend who was in the market for a new one because I already bought the one I am selling to him."

That's true, just like Ford lost out on a sale when I bought my Focus 2nd hand and the Publisher lost out when I bought my James Herbert book collection 2nd hand. What some of us are saying is that's the way it should be. The games industry isn't special, it's just like the others and they should act like it.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:38:07 AM

Gabriel,

Here's the thing. The online pass is for the continuing service offered by the publisher, not the game. Remember the publisher provides the servers that you use for your gaming. So to go back to your flawed car analogy, it would be closer if the car being sold on to a second owner had a non-transferable lifetime manufacturers service agreement with the original purchaser. Would you as the buyer of the used car expect to receive continued free service from the manufacturer and their dealer network? No, you wouldn't. You'd have to pay for that yourself separately to the car. That is what we're talking about. No one is stopping you buying a used game, or trading one. However since the used purchaser has paid the publisher *nothing* for the game they are using, it makes perfect sense for the publisher to in turn say, no access to the servers we maintain unless you pony up for an online pass.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:39:09 AM

@JMO, That project is no longer unfortunately. Our music can still be heard online if you google our name but that band is finished for good. It's okay though, while it was great music and I got to do some new things on the bass, I enjoy playing punk rock more anyways.

@Gabriel, cars are different. Used cars need to be bought and sold and most Ford dealers make more money selling used Fords anyway so in most cases they did not lose out on a sale. You cannot compare car sales to software sales. They are very different markets. Trust me, I've spent many years of my life working in the car industry.

Also what Highlander said. He pounced before I could once again. :)

Last edited by Jawknee on 7/7/2011 1:41:30 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:48:10 AM

That's awesome Highlander. I wonder if he likes Rickenbacker guitars. They're quite awesome. A lot of Rockebilly musicians love those.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 2:56:57 AM

I'll ask him when next I see him. Catch up with me on the forum, I'll let you know there.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

JMO_INDY
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 3:23:23 AM

I had at LEAST 15 other people listen to TTC and each one of them loved it and asked why you guys weren't on a label. It was really great, and hey if you love punk then that's up to you my man, More power to you!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

GuyverLT
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:43:15 AM

LOL at the people who just can't seem to get it. If I'm a developer and I'm spending MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of dollars, working my ass off to bring my creative vision to life for people's entertainment why in the world wouldn't I expect FULL profit or something close to it for something I worked so damn hard to create and why would any of you expect them not too want at least something close to full profit for something they work so hard to make, that makes no sense.

I think I'm the only person who's never ever even tried or gave MP aspect of a game a second thought it's always been about the SP experience for me and if the game happens to have SP Co-op then that's even better. This whole PS Pass thing doesn't really bother me at; Plus I buy all my games new anyways.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:02:46 PM

@Guyver, LOL, he won't get it. A2K78 also thinks piracy is good for the industry as well.

@Highlander, cool, you can shoot me a message on PSN. :)

Last edited by Jawknee on 7/7/2011 12:03:08 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:17:23 PM
Reply

I think used buyers should applaud this as well. Used retailers finally have a reason to stop gouging people as Highlander said. This is going to create more competition for places like Gamestop. If anyone deserves to have their bottom line cut into it's places like Gamestop. I still go in there now and then for craps and giggles while the wife goes to Michael's and it's astonishing the prices they are asking for games they had no hand in creating.

Last edited by Jawknee on 7/6/2011 11:17:53 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:11:42 AM

what i see a lot at gamestop is i see the older entry in the series is only 2 bucks cheaper used compared to the newer entry sold new.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gabriel013
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:22:27 AM

But as I said earlier in the comments, Gamestop and their like will just pay less out for the game in the first place and so the original purchaser loses out. Knock on impact is that they might never buy in the first place.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:41:13 AM

They will do what the market allows them to do. To be honest, you are sounding very defensive of GameStop and not so appreciative of the publishers and developers. Just for your information, GameStop is only profitable because of used game sales, IIRC they had $2billion in used game revenue last year. GameStop spent exactly $0 making new games. Instead of directing your anger and irritation at the people who spend money to make the games and expect to be paid for their work, perhaps you could direct it at GameStop and others. After all, they are the ones collecting money for nothing. Tell GameStop to reduce their profit margin on used games, let them take some heat for once.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:44:33 AM

Gabriel, No they won't. As John said above they will start to lose business because of less trades and less used purchases. In order to bring more business they will either have to offer more on trades or lower their prices. It's a win win for everyone except Gamestop.

Last edited by Jawknee on 7/7/2011 1:45:05 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:31:48 PM
Reply

What if I just want to pay a cheaper price for a new game with no multiplayer attached? That's what I want.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:35:42 PM

I'd be OK for that, if the online pass takes off, I bet we'll eventually see a de-bundling of it.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:16:02 AM

too bad they only take out multiplayer access without lowering prices, i'm looking at you capcom and resident evil.

i'm up for that, sell the physical copy of the game at around 30, depending on the content of the single player, then sell online multiplayer access digitally. basically a game like killzone would be around 40 retail plus 20 multiplayer. or a game like COD with 20 at retail and then 10 onine since they charge a crap load for dlcs anyway.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

StangMan80
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:46:54 PM
Reply

I don't like this. what if you want to sell your game. the code better be reusable and work on another system.
We can only wait and see where this leads.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:56:20 PM

The code in an online pass is a one-use code. Once you use it, it's used. It activates that game element for your PSNID, and that's it.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:05:37 AM

Then who ever buys the copy you sold will have to buy the online pass from PSN before they can play online. It's going to out a dent in Gamestops used inventory, that's for sure...but that's the point. DLC has already largely done the same thing. I haven't sold any games I bought DLC for and I probably never will.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:18:23 AM

if you want to have your pass active on different ps3s, just activate other ps3s on your account and download the pass on that system. then they can try it themselves. this is only assuming that its in your download list instead of the services list.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:09:37 AM
Reply

It's ok... Im ok with this type of practice. If this is fr the purpose of helpIng combat used sales then I'm more for it. Developers work hard to create these games but when a game is sold used they see nothing while Gamestop (depending on the title of course) see a huge profit.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:41:40 AM
Reply

Not that it matters, but I think it's a fair deal. These games cost a ton to make. However I feel bad for the person who waits until the game is cheap, buys it used and bundled with the online pass, then gets online only to find out there is nobody left playing online.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:56:24 AM
Reply

This doesnt really concern me since i usually buy new. if i buy used, i have a system in place for it. i just buy it from gamestop, beat it, then return it. if i want the game then i'll buy a new copy. I've platinumed arkham asylum used from gamestop in less than 7 days, ended up buying the game of the year edition a little later. i always do this now with games i'm not sure of. i can usually tell from the single player campaign if i want to play it online. result is that no cost to try it and i support developers when i actually buy the game new.

I'm tired of that excuse that they already got money for the sale so they shouldnt charge the guy who bought used. the guy who bought it new has the right to play online, its his pass, not the used game customer. he basically reserved the spot on the network for himself. If you buy a game used, you know what you're getting into. as far as i'm concerned, if you are buying a game used, you really dont have any right to complain about how they are handling it. frankly, i dont know why this is an issue at all because if you buy new, theres no extra charge. The phrase "you get what you pay for" comes to mind.

as for dlcs, i usually just buy it from gamestop, pop in the code in my ps3, return the game with some sort of excuse for a full refund, then buy it at a different store that has a much better deal like kmart. i've done it for killzone 3, socom 4, and will do it again for future games. i dont like all this exclusive preorder dlc stuff so i'll find a way to get mine.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Warrior Poet
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:58:37 AM
Reply

It's interesting to see that everyone here equates used games with gamestop. I buy a ton of games used - mostly retro games that I couldn't buy new anyway, but also some modern ones like Eternal Sonata. I'm a 16-year-old who loves old-school RPGs (who knew?) but I also can't afford to keep buying $60 games. But I love games! What am I to do? :P

I buy my games straight from another gamer if I can. Rummage sales, Craigslist, all that wonderful stuff. I think eBay is fine too. The seller gets what they want for it, and I get what I paid for. You can sell much higher and buy much lower than you can at gamestop when you get to decide on your own prices. Selling retro games has actually become a money-making business for me!

I have to agree with everyone that gamestop is horrible. They tried to buy my little brother's Madden 10 for $.50 because 11 was out, but guess how much they were selling Madden 08 for? It's robbery, and their prices for games in poor condition are way too high. And besides all that, I don't like yellow stickers plastered all over my games ;)

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:19:48 AM

if you're preferred genre is rpgs, then this wont really be a problem with you then.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:43:39 AM

Even with this, the only think that will affect purchasers on Ebay of used games is that the potential prices may decrease a little, and you will have to obtain an online pass if you want to play that specific game's online content. As I said above, the effect of this ultimately should be to reduce the price of used games.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:45:24 AM

White Knight Chronicles has some great online John, but there won't be a pass for it unless someone screws the pooch for the American release.

He's right though, never go to gamestop unless you are looking for old PS2 games.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 2:56:12 AM

No I don't think there will be an online pass-code for WKC2. There is a one use code that comes with WKC2, but that;s a make-over code for your avatar. It's in there so that anyone with WKC1 can remake their avatar for the new game without spending another $5 on a make-over ticket. Also, the micro transactions that allow players to buy certain things for their georama help in making an online pass unnecessary and unlikely for WKC2.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 4:03:46 AM

ohh, i know about white knight. i have the game actually, just havent played it for a while. i got so bored of grinding so i stopped. i was just saying that if rpgs are your thing, online passes wont really concern you because most dont really do online modes.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

AcHiLLiA
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:06:03 AM
Reply

This is probably going to hurt me in the future (when it comes to online gaming) since I buy more used games than new.


Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 7/7/2011 1:15:12 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:45:56 AM

And Gamefly for that matter.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:47:18 AM
Reply

OHHHH! So THAT explains the single use online code I got in my copy of WKC2! As if we didn't all see it coming. I've posted up my thoughts on this topic before so... yeah, Sony or not makes no difference to me.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 2:54:09 AM

Not so sure of that. WKC2 doesn't use an online pass as far as I know. But it does include one avatar make-over ticket. When you create your avatar in the first game you are warned that once you start the game you can't change the avatar again, unless you buy a specific make-over ticket - DLC - for $4.99. I remember reading that WKC2 comes with one make-over code that allows players of WKC1 to re-make their avatar in the new game - if they wish, by using the make-over ticket.

I think what you have is that, not an online pass. The thing about the online in WKC & WKC2 is that because they sell Georama items that you can use to enhance the stats of your Georama, online is to some extent or another micro-transaction supported.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 3:11:19 AM

Well, the code has in big bold letters: "HOW TO ACCESS ONLINE FEATURES"

On top of that, it says in the booklet

"RECUSTOMISE AVATAR
"You will need to purchase a GeoNet Licence and download a Full Chara Remake Ticket from Playstation Stor to re-customise you avatar."

Take that as you will, you know full well that I can't use the code, so can't ascertain which is truth.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 3:49:02 AM

That being said, Highlander, it may well be different for the American release, as the game has a third party publisher over there so...

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:44:24 AM

I was going by how the game was described on release in Japan.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PSTan
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:49:56 AM
Reply

Here's a wild idea: let's keep this online pass system, but reduce the MSRP of each game in the program by 5 bucks. that way, people will be motivated to buy the game new. this reduced cost could even stimulate sales of these games. this could also help reduce used game prices. and since used games need to have a pass bought separately, have it on sale on PS Store for 5 bucks. this way, any losses are easily offset.

that's my two cents, anyway. I buy most games new anyway, so this shouldn't be a problem for me. however, i can forsee some people disliking this system, especially penny pinchers.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

gray_eagle
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 2:38:11 AM
Reply

i rarely play multiplayer now, even if i still did, i don't see whats the big deal about the online pass. its not like sony is charging anything for it.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 2:58:39 AM
Reply

Ben, I think that online passes might be a great topic for a future video article in the PSX Home show...

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 3:36:36 AM
Reply

sigh.
when will the greediness end?
as the saying goes, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer!
no middle class now, you either swim in cash, or dream of it.
only happening because people accept it though, i mean if this was to happen 20 years ago there HQ would of been burned to the ground by now!


Last edited by ___________ on 7/7/2011 3:37:49 AM

Agree with this comment 6 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 3:45:38 AM

Dude, we're talking about games here not the economy. Even one game that doesn't hit it big can sink a development company.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 9:13:56 AM

He's actually right...

Last edited by slugga_status on 7/7/2011 9:14:38 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 9:26:55 AM

oh the irony!

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 4:23:52 AM
Reply

Ohy come on, you who defend this bullshit. Open your eyes. This is ugly. This is greed.

What if Ford started selling cars with an ignition system where the car key were "binded" with your drivers license? And a fee of 15% of sales price of the car had to be payed to Ford to rebind that key to the new owner? Sure, they'd get a share of the used car markets then, but c'mon... This is *not* in the users interest no matter how you twist and turn it.

I totally agree with Gabriel013 & co, they should just leave the used market be.
The publishers should LOWER their prices instead, so people can afford to buy it new. There, case solved.


Last edited by Beamboom on 7/7/2011 4:27:29 AM

Agree with this comment 7 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 4:31:57 AM

Furthermore, those of you who prefer single player games should ALSO be against this, cause what will happen now?

EVERY game will now shift focus to online gaming in one way or another, cause EVERY publisher want their piece of this newly served cake.

Hello? Don't be so naive! This is BAD. This is SAD.


Last edited by Beamboom on 7/7/2011 4:35:48 AM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:20:42 AM

Stop freaking out. Your analogy is ridiculous because it implies multiplayer is absolutely essential for someone to play a game, like an ignition or a driver's license.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:46:51 AM

You're very wrong, and you're over reacting tremendously.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:01:53 AM

You are probably right that I am overreacting, only history will tell.

But as a developer, when you can get a share of the used game sales by making your game so that multiplayer is absolutely essential for someone to play it, then why wouldn't you?

And furthermore, don't you think this "carrot" will cause fewer offline games to be made?

Last edited by Beamboom on 7/7/2011 11:13:28 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:12:17 AM

I think that if this puts more of the revenue generated by game sales in the pockets of the publishers and developers then there will be more good games for me to play. That is a good thing.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

RadioHeader
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 4:49:21 AM
Reply

The industry should come up with a way to scam GameStop and the like. Not us.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Random_Steve
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 4:53:26 AM
Reply

What if you share your PS3 with someone else, surly you won't have to buy two copies of the game? Not only that, but my brother has his own PS3 and my younger brother and I share, so if he gets a game, does that mean we can't play it online? If so, this is ridiculous.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Random_Steve
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 4:57:34 AM

In addition to that, in England, I tried to buy a used copy of Fight Night Champion from game which would set me back £27, or I could buy it new from their website for £22, and it's not as though this is the only time I've seen this happen. If consumers used their brains a but more, they could see that buying games new off the internet is quite a lot of the time cheaper than used from the highstreet.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 4:59:53 AM

Exactly! Like me and my son. I let him borrow my games and he's got his own PS3, I've borrowed some of his too now and then. Now our hands are shackled. And there are gamers who *defend* this?

I got a feeling the only, ONLY reason some defend this is cause it's got a "SONY" label on. This is a scandal for us as consumers.


Last edited by Beamboom on 7/7/2011 5:02:14 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Random_Steve
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 5:30:05 AM

It means say we both want to get a game and play it online we'll have to shell out £80 on it, which is a ridiculous amount of money for a family to play one game. Furthermore, if you can't share the codes across the system, that's £120! As you said, there's no way of defending this

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 5:46:05 AM

Well if you both want to play an online game *at the same time* you'd still need to buy two games, but with this system my son can not borrow my Crysis2 to play online on his ps3 unless we buy him a second licence to play on his account.

This just plain sucks. There's no other way to describe it.

But, even WORSE, in my opinion, this more or less FORCE online multiplayer to be implemented in EVERY game released. Cause what publisher in their right minds would say "no thanks" to even more sales?

This is a crisis.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:47:23 AM

No, you buy one copy of the game and the second player pays for their own online pass.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Random_Steve
Friday, July 08, 2011 @ 9:19:59 AM

So this is also a way for Sony to subtly charge for online play?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, July 08, 2011 @ 4:42:39 PM

Not really since when you buy the game new, it's included for free. Remember, at this point, only customers buying a game new are paying the publisher anything for the game. Online play itself is free, in the case of online passes, it's the individual publishers trying to recover some of the sales that they lose to used game sales (primarily). A used game buyer does pay the publisher anything right now, so the publishers feel that they have no obligation to provide additional content or server access to people who haven't paid them anything.

But the fundamental thing is that if you buy your game new, it's free to play for as long as you own the game.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

tridon
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 6:12:28 AM
Reply

This doesn't bother me too much since I'm basically a single-player-only gamer. The only MP I usually enjoy is one where my buddy or brother is sitting in the same room with me. I occasionally buy used games but they're usually from pawn shops or eBay, not Gamestop, and they're usually only games that I can't find anymore or it's a ridiculously good deal.

Where this DOES bother me is where I buy a new game for full price, give Sony (or whoever) my cash and then I can't lend the game out to my friends/relatives. I mean, I can lend it to them but they won't get the full experience unless they buy an online pass... which I'm guessing will probably cost $10. Not to mention that if you rent a game now, you'll technically be paying $20 to rent rather than the usual $10 or so.

This is why I miss the PS One/PS2 days. You buy the game and that's it. Mortal Kombat: Armageddon was LOADED with characters, side quests and mini-games for $60. The new Mortal Kombat has already cost me $70 just so I can play as two additional characters.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 6:47:23 AM

"I'm basically a single-player-only gamer." -> Then this should worry you a LOT.

EVERY game will now shift focus to online gaming in one way or another, cause EVERY publisher want their piece of this newly served pai.

So those awesome single player only games may come few and far between now. Hold on to those you've got.


Last edited by Beamboom on 7/7/2011 6:48:48 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:05:44 AM

@Beamboom

I can actually understand both sides of this argument.

But this assertion that EVERY game will now shift focus to online gaming is just plain ridiculous. Just because a certain idea is profitable doesn't mean that everyone is going to try and follow it. If that were true the market would be filled with nothing but online first person shooters trying to beat Call of Duty or something else of the like.

Believe it or not there are actually developers out there who are actually NOT concerned with only money and nothing else.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

tridon
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:27:34 AM

@Beamboom

When I said "I'm basically a single-player-only gamer", that didn't mean that I only play games without a MP mode. There's been dozens upon dozens of amazing single-player experiences these last couple years and most of them do come with a MP mode tacked on, too. Doesn't mean that I play MP, though.

I loved Uncharted 2 and I played the Call of Duty games and they featured multiplayer. I just stuck with the campaign (even though I did try the U2 MP and thought it was well done). I don't think single-player gaming is going anywhere. You'll get the occassional MP-only title such as MAG or DC Universe Online but I can guarantee that most console titles will still carry a SP campaign with it.

I mean, look at Starhawk. Warhawk was MP-only and now the sequel is going to include a SP campaign, too. If anything, developers are recognizing that SP campaigns are still important... especially on consoles.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:52:23 AM

@LG: Well not literary everyone, of course.
But will this make developers *additionally* motivated in creating an online gaming concept rather than an offline game? And will that mean that some good offline ideas never see the light of day because of this "bonus"?
I'd say "of course". And that's the worst side of this case imo.


Last edited by Beamboom on 7/7/2011 10:55:12 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:24:47 AM

@Beamboom

Oh give me a break. So people who have never been interested in doing online play despite online play having been proven to be VERY profitable are now going to be motivated by it because it might now be slightly more profitable? To call that a stretch would be a serious understatement. If the monstrous profitability of Call of Duty and other online games wasn't enough to sway them then this isn't going to either.

The only people who might consider using an online pass are those who were already interested in online play to begin with for whatever reason.

And enough with the fear already. Before we go out running and screaming that the sky is falling can we please wait until we actually have some proof (or at least very strong evidence) that it actually is falling?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:06:12 PM

You are probably right, I'm overreacting here.

Still, I will no longer be able to let my kid borrow my online games should I want to. That really pisses me off. It also mess up the consumer-to-consumer used games market not to my advantage, and that pisses me off as well.

AND, I believe this will affect the focus of the developers in general terms further away from single player and offline games. That really piss me off cause we don't need that.

Add all that up and you do get a rather pissed, overreacting Beamy.


Last edited by Beamboom on 7/7/2011 12:08:10 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:43:52 PM

@Beamboom

Okay, first of all I think using the word "will" and speaking in future tense is a bit problematic because as Highlander pointed out a lot of publishers are already doing online passes. This has already been going on and thus far with no noticeable effect of the kind that you're talking about.

And besides, the damage that you're talking about has already been done. The focus of many developers has already been moved further away from single player and offline games. The causes of this are the emergence of instant gratification gaming and the emerging monstrous popularity and profitability of online multiplayer.

All this has been happening for some time. If there are people (and there are by the way) who haven't already gotten on that train and aren't planning to then other people using online passes isn't going to change their minds. And let's also keep in mind that there are also people who manage to do a great job with both the single player and multiplayer aspects of a game like Naughty Dog for example.

Last edited by Looking Glass on 7/7/2011 12:51:06 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 2:23:45 PM

Yeah maybe I am freaking a bit out here. I still think it is wrong to just accept things and go with the flow though.

Cause fact of the matter is: There *are* negative consequences of this, and as far as I am able to see there are no real *positive* consequences of this, at least they are much more speculative than the negatives.

So *why* defend this in the first place? I don't understand that. At best this will only make more hazzle for us!


Last edited by Beamboom on 7/7/2011 2:24:41 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 3:06:09 PM

@Beamboom

As is the case with many things in life, there are both positives (perhaps securing more profit for developers and giving used sellers incentive to lower their prices) and negatives (perhaps making borrowing and renting games a bit more complicated) that come from online passes.

Perhaps for you personally the negatives outweigh the positives.

But in any case I get the impression that Sony is at the moment pretty much testing the waters for this kind of thing. Case in point they are just doing this with Resistance 3 at the moment. If things don't work out so well for Resistance 3 they might forget the whole thing. Let's wait and see how this plays out.

Last edited by Looking Glass on 7/7/2011 3:08:12 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 3:37:07 PM

Quoting, "If things don't work out so well for Resistance 3 they might forget the whole thing."
Indeed you may be right and this is why I think it is wrong to just sit back and see what happens next - quite the contrary!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 4:14:43 PM

@Beamboom

Do whatever you feel you need to do. As for me, I'm going to be watching and waiting to see how this plays out.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lotusflow3r
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 6:16:51 AM
Reply

WKC2 already has this in some form by Sony. It comes with a psn code to allow for online play and can only be used once and it's £7.99 to get another code.

Last edited by Lotusflow3r on 7/7/2011 6:24:25 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 6:41:13 AM

Thanks for clarifying that. And that, Highlander, is the affirmed "I told ya so" :P

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:46:12 AM

I'll believe it when I see it. But since I buy games new, it won't hurt me either way.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lotusflow3r
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 7:41:03 PM

Need me to post pix? A quick search should also confirm for you.

This might be Sony's doing. D3 might do something different, but then again, it has to go through PSN and Sony for licensing still...soo....probably the same deal.

50+ days left for you Americans, btw :)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 9:46:23 PM

The wait is far too long.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

NoSmokingBandit
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 6:17:54 AM
Reply

I wont be buying any games that do this.

Gamestop does charge outrageous prices for used games, but nobody is forcing you to buy from them, you can get a used game on ebay for less, so its only going to help the most uneducated consumers and hurt the intelligent few who buy their used games cheap.

If people are getting upset that devs arent making any money on used sales, why not throw a fit about libraries? Authors have been getting screwed for years according to that theory.

And i dont get why game devs feel they need to see a cut of 2nd hand sales. No other manufacturer in the world gets a cut of 2nd hand sales, why should gaming be the single market that gets to double-dip?

Last edited by NoSmokingBandit on 7/7/2011 6:23:43 AM

Agree with this comment 6 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 6:46:10 AM

Here here.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:47:59 AM

Your loss, if you buy new, this has no impact.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:24:39 AM

But it has, Highlander! That's the problem.

It has an impact on me, cause I can no longer let my son borrow my online games. That's an impact right there. It may not be much, it may not mean anything to you or the general public, but it *has* a direct impact.

You are over at your buddys house and he has a game you'd never buy but could want to borrow just over the weekend. You can no longer do that unless you pay up. You may call yourself a cheapass for not paying, but that is an impact too.

Then there is the principal argument: *Why* should they have a share of the used market? Just, WHY? Why should we endorse it? It limits our use of the product, *and* we gain nothing from it.
Why support such a thing?


Last edited by Beamboom on 7/7/2011 11:26:30 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:38:04 AM

Try the game on your buddy's account.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:22:20 PM

hehe! Well, why don't you just as well suggest that we could hack it and override the entire verification process? That's strictly speaking a theoretical solution too. Just... WHY should we have to do this?

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I only see hazzle and negative consequences here, and how to best overcome these new obstacles.
Why defend it at all?


Last edited by Beamboom on 7/7/2011 12:23:34 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

mehrab2603
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 6:22:27 AM
Reply

The developers don't get a dime from used game sales, just like pirated games. So I see used game sales as legalized piracy and fully support such measures to combat it. But I also think games are overpriced at 60$. Games shouldn't cost more than 40$ imo.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

NoSmokingBandit
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 6:39:35 AM

Lolwat.

Did you ever buy a used car? Then you "legally stole" it from the manufacturer according to you.

Ever get a book at the library? You "legally pirated" it accord to you.

Ever borrow a game? Great, you now "stole" that game experience from the dev.

::rolls eyes::

Agree with this comment 9 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 6:49:49 AM

What if Ford started selling cars with an ignition system where the car key were "binded" with your drivers license? And a fee of 15% of sales price of the car had to be payed to Ford to rebind that key to the new owner? Sure, they'd get a share of the used car markets then, but c'mon... This is *not* in the users interest no matter how you twist and turn it.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

mehrab2603
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 7:04:14 AM

So then it is ok to download and pirate games from the internet right? Cause either way you aren't supporting the devs. So why spend money when you can get it for free? Sounds like the smarter choice.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 7:23:30 AM

Eh... Hello?
Is it ok to steal a car just cause you arent supporting the manufacturer?
What kind of logic is that?


Last edited by Beamboom on 7/7/2011 7:28:06 AM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:53:32 AM

Beamboom,

This is more like a situation where you buy a new car, and it comes with a service agreement that as long as you own the car you get free service from the dealer network. When you sell the car to someone else, that service plan doesn't transfer.

Actually, in this case the online pass is better because the used game buyer has the opportunity to buy their own online pass, but the used car buyer has no way to purchase the service plan that the original owner had.

The fact is that developers and publishers who spend big money making the games get zero revenue from used games, and those used game sales actually reflect a lost new game sale to them. From the business perspective of a developer and publisher, used games are in terms of their net effect identical to piracy since they result in zero revenue and lost new game sales. When it comes to used game sales, there is currently only one winner, the used game retailer. Why else do you think other retailers are rushing to join GameStop. It's incredibly lucrative.

The online pass doesn't hurt the buyer of the new game, and unless used game buyers are prepared to continue ponying up the same $5 off the retail price for a game without the online pass, this doesn't hurt them either since the used price will have to decrease to compensate.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

maxpontiac
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 9:15:24 AM
Reply

I don't buy many used games, so it really doesn't bother me at all.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

maxpontiac
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 9:40:54 AM

I should clarify that "used multiplayer" games.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Excelsior1
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 9:30:04 AM
Reply

i don't like this. resistance 3 isn't going to to be a big seller anyways. some people won't even touch a game that has an online pass. talk about a buzkill for your game...first a god awful demo then an online pass.

activision has biggest online title out there. you don't see them using a stupid online pass.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:42:11 AM

As I said in response to your other post.

You do know that Activision is implementing a subscription-based service for the multiplayer sections of Modern Warfare 3 and Black Ops right?

So if you hate online passes then Activision is actually doing something arguably even worse than online passes. With a pass at least you only have to pay for it once.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 9:36:12 AM
Reply

I don't see how people are trying to spin this as something good. It effects the middle class of gamers and teenage gamers. It effects some parents as well. This is not acceptable..Just because it won't effect me doesn't make it right. Why charge people who aren't as fortunate just because developers who are a lot more fortunate claim they aren't getting their just due?

I don't care how much Gamestop or any other used games vendor sales the games for. It's their price and you either pay it or you don't. This is simply trying to discourage used game sales and video gaming will go this route completely if we consumers accept this. Next thing you know you'll have to use a code just to access deleted scenes or special features from a movie b/c you didn't buy it new..

Agree with this comment 7 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

jimmyhandsome
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 9:58:07 AM

Honestly I don't get why people say this is good either. I'm guessing because its Sony. This sure as hell would be met with more criticism if Activistion announced an online pass for MW3.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:09:17 AM

I believe that is exactly what it is Jimmy. Let Activision do this and all hell would break loose. Yet Sony does it and it's ok. There was far more backlash toward EA when they implemented this crap..

What makes it worse is that we fail to mention how Mortal Kombat has a pass...That nobody could redeem b/c the network was down. The devs had to put a update out to allow PS3 user to play it online.

I just find it funny that the biggest multiplayer seller out there hasn't done this and they aren't complaining...hmmm

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:18:56 AM

Nobody is saying it's "good." And just about everyone had the same reaction to EA's online pass. They just don't CARE very much.

We don't even have any real details on Sony's plan yet, so why are you immediately assuming the world is ending? That's the more important question.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Excelsior1
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:19:16 AM

@sluggs and jimmy

i agree with that. sayng this is a good thing is just plain nuts. i think jimmy hit it right on the head when he said "i'm guessing becuase it is sony." if activision did this with cod the same people who claim this is a good thing would probably be ripping activision apart.

segmenting games with an online pass system is a terrible tactic. you should be able to play mp without a damn code. i am surprised sony is doing this. if they make a great game that has a coimpelling mp then they do not need an online pass. people will hang onto threir games if they think they are good enough. cod games are a great example of this.

@ben

there are people above claimiing this is a good thing becuase it will cut into gamespots used game inventory and force them to lower prices. one person went as far as saying this was a win for everyone except gamespot so there are people implying this is a good thing.

i sure do not see it that way, and would never consider an online pass program a win for gamers. i feel it's just such an unfriendly way to treat consumers and gamers. i don't think it's the end of world or anything, but i sure do not like this move.

Last edited by Excelsior1 on 7/7/2011 10:39:23 AM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

jimmyhandsome
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:26:35 AM

@ Ben

Most of the comments have been people saying that they're ok with this type of pratice. And I even think that Jawk, Highlander, and Underdog (not calling you guys out just referencing your post) said that this is either "good news" or that they were in favor of it. I feel as consumers we should not be "ok" with this, which is why I voiced my opinion about how strongly I disagree with sort of tatic.

I'm not assuming the world is ending. I'm voicing my displeasure over this sort of thing. I'm also assuming that Sony's online pass will be similar to EA's ($10). Is that ok? Am I allowed to do that?

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:32:38 AM

@Excelsior1

You do know about about Activision's Call of Duty Elite thing right? It's a subscription based service for the MP sections of Modern Warfare 3 and Black Ops.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:36:36 AM

@Ben

Various comments on here stating it's good to give to the developers since they're being gimped by used game sales. Nobody is assuming anything. I'm speaking of these "Passes" in general. And while they won't effect myself and many of us it still leaves out the middle class of gamers who might not be as fortunate.

I said this in a previous comment, but I could totally understand having a one-time code to verify you have a real copy of the game to prevent piracy..Yet to have to for online only is ridiculous

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:39:55 AM

@Looking Glass

True but they aren't charging you to play online. They're charging you for access to additional content. Which is also things you should already have access to which is another crap service as well..

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Excelsior1
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:52:55 AM

@looking glass

as slugga already pointed out activision is not charging for online play. cod elite is just some glorified stat tracking feature that will offer tips to hardcore cod players. it's really not an online pass. more like a bonus feature.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:55:49 AM

You guys aren't getting this.

First of all, I'm very "middle class" and so is just about everyone I know. Realistically, unless you're lower class - VERY lower class - $5 makes absolutely no difference to you in this world. So we should all get off our high self-righteous horses concerning the actual cost of these passes.

Secondly, the idea that any of these passes is somehow an indication of future mystery fees pertaining to video games is illogical. Multiplayer involves other aspects of game development never before seen; it requires more work in the development process, and more work and required resources long after the game is produced. The idea that you can pay a one-time fee of $60, and continue to be entertained for hours and months on end is catching up to us. This isn't a movie we're watching over and over on our machines; it's a service we're using and in Sony's case, it's FREE.

There are many extra people that must be employed; many more dollars spent for multiplayer to function at the high level it does. I think we all need to understand that. This isn't in defense of passes; it's just saying that to assume the next step will be codes to unlock certain single-player elements is ridiculous. There are no extra dollars involved in that.

I don't agree with any sort of price gouging, and I don't like potential indications of something bad on the horizon. I don't see any of this in online passes; all I see are a lot of very spoiled gamers who don't quite understand what lies behind their entertainment, and are willing to start a needless revolution over $5.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 7/7/2011 10:57:18 AM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:58:11 AM

It's a good thing if it gives developers and publishers a better return on their investment in making games. If they are more profitable, then they make more games. More games = good right?

It's good for paying customers, new buyers lose nothing, and used buyers lose nothing either since it will be impossible for a used game retailer to sell a game requiring an online pass for $5 off the new price without the online pass. In which case they either have to bundle a new online pass or drop the price of the used game by the same amount to make sure that the cost of the used game is still sufficiently attractive to buyers. So the used game buyer doesn't lose. Only the middle men who do nothing to help development or publishing of games lose money here, and that's not a bad thing. If you can't see that, then I'm sorry. At the end of the day, anything that makes publishers and developers more healthy is a good thing. Remember only Activision is Activision. Most game publishers see significant revenue effects from used game sales, and that affects the profitability of their business. If they don't make enough money, they stop making games.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:02:45 AM

@ Excelsior1 and slugga_status

Actually, I think we should stay tuned on the Call of Duty Elite thing because as far as I can tell all of the details have yet to made clear. But what is known is that certain aspects of it will indeed cost money.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PorkChopGamer
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:16:32 AM

Well, Ben, seeing as how EA did it with Dragon Age: Origins, cutting the sizable Stone Prisoner content that was 'free' for people who purchased it new, DLC for people who bought it used, logic seems to be on the side of the people predicting this trickling into single player games as well.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:19:54 AM

@ Ben

We likely have different views on middle class people b/c to some of us $5 is nothing to others it could be far more valuable. So you can't say it'll make no difference b/c everybody situation is different. Also, the "Passes" are not $5..For example EA's passes cost anywhere from $7.99 to $10. I know for Madden 11 it certainly was $10.

I completely understand what lies behind my entertainment. I'm sorry but devs don't go out and hire tons of more people simply for MP. There are many devs who do everything in-house and still produce stellar MP. To be honest, people who don't view this as a issue don't like, play, nor enjoy MP.

Also, I'm not sure where you got the "it's just saying that to assume the next step will be codes to unlock certain single-player elements is ridiculous." As no one said that.

There's no revolution or anything...When I pay my $60+ I shouldn't have to enter a code to access online content. If I buy it used I shouldn't have to pay to access online content b/c clearly the game was already purchased so there was no money lost on the Devs end.

You're a 360 owner also as myself..We pay for Live service. Buy a used game that requires a pass and you're paying to play twice..

Last edited by slugga_status on 7/7/2011 11:22:17 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:32:10 AM

@Highlander

The developers are already profitable. This is doing nothing but a way to make more money. Naught Dog has been profitable and continued to make great games throughout the years.

I'm not sure why you say impossible for used game sellers to sell the games either. This hasn't stopped anyone yet from selling the games and them flying off the shelves. They don't need to bundle it with a new pass b/c it's used. You know what you're buying and you know it's used so that's on the consumer for taking the chance. There is no reason for devs to charge you to play online just b/c your pockets might not be up to par to buy new.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

jimmyhandsome
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:32:11 AM

You guys have gone on record saying how you don't care for mutliplayer as much as single player. I think that may be clouding your judgement when it comes to how this will negatively affect consumers that do enjoy playing multiplayer. We don't know if its $5, we don't know if its $10, all we know is that these are no longer "mystery fees"....they're very real, from monthly subscriptions (CoD Elite), to DLC (that may or may not have been left out of the title to be released later on) to these online passes.

I just think its a very unnecessary cost that EA and Sony have passed along to the used game consumer. Its double dipping. Plain and simple.

Edit: I'm not against DLC, I often purchase them if the price is right, but publishers sometimes abuse it (again, CoD $15 map packs comes to mind). But at least with DLC you're getting something out of it. These online passes are easy ways for publishers to make some money off of the huge used game market.

Last edited by jimmyhandsome on 7/7/2011 11:37:43 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:38:07 AM

@Ben

Well, technically there already is a system in place for paying extra for additional single player content. It's a called DLC.

@PorkChopGamer

But at the same time DLC has nothing to do with online passes and online play. It's a separate issue.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:39:24 AM

Slugga, *All* developers? There have been many examples of devs folding in the last two years, so you're wrong. But, you're not going to agree or understand and I'm not wasting my time with this any more.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:43:22 AM

"We likely have different views on middle class people b/c to some of us $5 is nothing to others it could be far more valuable. So you can't say it'll make no difference b/c everybody situation is different."

Apply that same reasoning to developers. Not all of them are making gobs of money. They have paychecks to write, facilities to maintain, servers to maintain and new projects to fund. Every time you buy a used game from Gamestop to save a measly $5 you are making it harder for them to write those paychecks, maintain those facilities, maintain those servers and fund new projects.

"There is no reason for devs to charge you to play online just b/c your pockets might not be up to par to buy new."

When they are spending money to maintain the servers you are playing their software on and you didn't buy the game from them, they have every reason to charge you for access to their servers since you didn't buy the game from them to begin with. That's like saying you can barrow my car but I still have to pay for the gas.

Just give it up. Your not going to convince anyone that you should be allowed to have your cake and eat it too. And please, spare us the lecture about what $5 means to someone who falls under your definition of the "middle class". If you have enough money to buy a PS3 and spend $55 on games then you are doing just fine. If you really are struggling for essentials and need to scrounge for $5...well then you should get your priorities in line and maybe play less games.

Last edited by Jawknee on 7/7/2011 11:56:49 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 6 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:04:30 PM

@slugga_status

Well technically if you pay for Xbox Live then you're paying a lot more than twice.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Excelsior1
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:13:11 PM

some people just do not like the principle of an online pass program. others, feel differently. used game sales are lawful, and they drive purchases of new games. online passes just end up hurting the online community becuase some just won't pay that fee.

are we moving towards the day where you have to pay for the game again if you buy it used? that's essentially what has happened to pc games.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:29:00 PM

Anybody who thinks multiplayer doesn't require more man hours and overall resources when compared to single-player experiences of old needs to sit down and talk with a developer. They should also ask how many more resources are required to keep pumping out multiplayer DLC.

Gamers are spoiled. For years, players have taken advantage of services like free online play with the PlayStation Network and assumed their $60 covers everything. It's completely absurd. That $60 barely covers the cost of development; has anyone actually looked at the number of copies a game needs to sell for it to be truly profitable? Has anyone wondered WHY publishers and developers are seeking extra funds? Do we really think it's just because they're money-grubbing, consumer-hating conglomerates? Could we please try not to be so blatantly anti-big business?

It just MIGHT have something to do with the insane cost of game development, which is only rising due VERY MUCH to the "necessity" of multiplayer. Continuing to support games long after they've been released, from servers to content to every other possible service in between, costs money. A lot of money. And for the gamer, they've been getting ALL of that mostly for free (not counting the Xbox Live service cost).

Evidently, some people think they're entitled to a lot more than makes any sort of common sense. But then again, that's the new law of this country- everyone is entitled to everything just "because." I know people like slugga think all publishers and developers are sitting around sipping champagne all day; the reality of the situation when taking into account ALL game companies, from small to large, is nowhere near so rosy.

Maybe these gamers should do some real homework, rather than just adopting the blind "the little consumer is always right!" mentality.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 7/7/2011 12:32:07 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:39:43 PM

@Highlander

I never said "All" developers. So I'm not sure what exactly I'm to disagree or agree with you about. I agree developers have folded but name me one that had a great SP and MP that folded? BTW I'm glad you're telling me what I will or won't understand didn't I certainly wouldn't make that assumption toward anybody.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:50:41 PM

Jawknee

At what point did I say all developers are making millions or how you put it "gobs of money"? You're still stuck on Gamestop and what does it matter if somebody is trying to save $5?

Oh so it's ok to charge someone to use your server b/c you didn't buy the game from them? Your analogy is ok but I have a better one..Say you buy baseball tickets from somebody in a parking lot, you go to the booth attendee says "That'll be an additional $5 because you didn't buy your ticket from us"..that is the exact same thing that is being described now.

BTW, how bout you give it up. I was never talking to you in the first place. My comment about $5 was directed towards Ben and not yourself nor was it a lecture.

If you weren't so ignorant you wouldn't assume that I don't have money to buy games at $60+. If you paid attention you might have saw were I said "This won't effect me but it doesn't make it right"..Read before making yourself appear bias and ignorant.

Last edited by slugga_status on 7/7/2011 12:51:09 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:02:50 PM

Slugga

My assessment of what you will and won't believe or say is based purely on your posts.

You said (in a discussion about whether oniline passes are a way to help developers stay profitable);

"The developers are already profitable. This is doing nothing but a way to make more money. "

YOu made no effort to qualify that. I asked if you mean *all* developers, because the implication of your comment is exactly that. As for you agreeing with me or not, and whether you 'get' my point, I think it's firmly established that you don't agree with me and don't get my point based on all your comments so far just in this comment section.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

jimmyhandsome
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:04:56 PM

@ Ben

So is this online pass being used to curb used game sales, or more so to make more money from consumers? Or both? And why in the world is Sony coming out and saying that this pass "allows us to accelerate our commitment to enhancing premium online services across our first party game portfolio." What online services will be different? Maybe they have yet to announce something but it doesn't sound like much will change with this online pass.


I'm well aware of the increasing production costs this generation. I unfortunately don't have exact numbers per project, but its been well documented by different developers of how they struggle to pull in a profit on certain games. But this online pass is a way for publishers to make money off of the used game market. Period. They aren't offering anything new or different, or giving a reason why you need to pay this fee. They charge someone to buy the game, then they charge whomever else comes across that game to play online. Essentially they're charging multiple consumers for the same product. Why is that ok? If the game is sold to Gamefly and rented to 4 or 5 different people that all pay for the pass, they're essentially making over $100 per copy. I'm sorry, but its hard to feel bad for the developer/publisher when that will now be the case.

If you want to charge a yearly subscription to play online- then just effing do it. I already pay for XBL, and I most likely would sign up for a pay-to-play service for PSN. Don't dance around this by only allowing only one user of the game to play it online, while charging a pass for everyone else that comes across the copy. Thats just lame, and its unfortunate that this will now make people think twice about buying certain games used AND new.

I know you already think that I'm "anti-corporations" or whatever but I think the main reason people are upset is that companies keep coming up with new ways to charge the consumer in hopes that we somehow won't notice. I don't have a sense of entitlement or feel that I'm entitled to anything "just because". People feel slighted because when they buy a game new for $60, or new for $55, they probably expect to have access to whatever features are listed on the box at no extra cost, including multiplayer.

Of course, most of you that are defending this online pass are the same ones that have said you don't play online games often.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:05:51 PM

@Ben

I've talked with developers from Apps to Video Games many times this year due to college. I could've have worded it better however, it's how you use your resources is what I'm consistently told. I think DLC is different b/c we don't really know if this was already on the game, created after the game, etc.

Some gamers are spoiled and some are not. I spoil myself and show appreciation with my PS Plus purchase and content that I purchase. I spoil myself by having Live access on the 360 as well. I know how many copies of a game need to be sold to turn a profit. It's the same as music sales in a sense.

Believe me I'm no novice in regards to Networking and know vast information about servers and what is needed to be done to keep them running. I'm sorry but I fail to believe that used game sales are what is hurting pubs and devs. To me, it has always been piracy that is truly gimping their sales figures.

To be honest I'm surprised by the ignorance being displayed. Because at no point in time did I say all developers get billions and drink champagne. I'm always open for debate with those who seem like they are mature for one..but I find it funny those that disagree with me add additional comments that I never said...

All you can have your opinion and I have mine and at no point was I trying to say you have to agree with me. I respect others thoughts but don't disrespect my opinion by including comments I never said nor implied. I could've worded it better yea but it is what it is



Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:09:45 PM

Highlander

Simple case of miscommunication then. Believe me, I usually agree with you on most other topics. I get what you're saying I just don't agree and there's nothing wrong with that just like you might get what I'm saying but don't necessarily agree either. I'm not trying to convert anybody here...

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

jimmyhandsome
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:18:18 PM

As slugga said, I'm not trying to convince anyone to think differently either. Most people will be unmovable with this debate. But I don't think that I'm "wrong" for thinking that this online pass is bad for the consumer. But hey, to each their own.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:20:24 PM

@Jimmy I couldn't have said this any better "If you want to charge a yearly subscription to play online- then just effing do it." I mean really..at this point I'd rather pay a yearly subscription instead of tip toeing around it. Yet then again they'd still charge for online access b/c they do it on the 360.

@Ben

I'm just curious on your thoughts about this. Do you not think piracy is the cause? I feel that it is b/c we all know the 360 can be hacked to play pirated games even after new updates. Then the recent PS3 hacks to play pirated games. I look at that and say that is where your lost sales are coming from.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:20:47 PM

Slugga indeed, nothing wrong with honest disagreement, which is frequent here as everyone has passionately held beliefs. This topic is a particular hot button topic because it touches on used game sales, piracy and all manner of other issues which have all been hot topics here in the past.

Fundamentally I see the issue as this, GameStop and the other used game retailers are like money vacuum cleaners sucking revenue straight from the pockets of developers and publishers. That is what the online pass is aimed at. Game rental and personal used game sales are smaller slices of the used game market. To me, if the use of online passes makes games more profitable, that helps me as a gamer because I will see more and better games to come. I have seen many developers go to the wall in the last few years, and in some cases it's been hastened by poor sales of otherwise excellent games. If the online pass can help that at all, then it's a good thing for everyone - IMHO.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:38:10 PM

@Highlander

Agree with you that this topic is one that a lot of people feel a certain way about. If I truly felt that this was to clean up the used game retailers that overcharge then I'd totally agree. Which is essentially what you were saying in regards to making the Gamestops and other retailers sale the used games at a lower price. The way this is coming off just seems like a money grab. We both just want games to get better and better.

I just think we should have to enter a one-time code to verify that I have a legit copy of a game. That way if you buy used you can charge for the game whether it's $5,$10,$15. And I thought they mentioned something like last year but maybe it was a rumor..

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 3:01:00 PM

This has to stop now, as nobody is getting anywhere.

For the record, I'm not defending online passes or the practice of charging consumers more for various things. I'm saying gamers are extremely spoiled, most have no idea how much financing is required for a project that includes multiplayer, and that $5 or $10 means very, very little to just about everyone over the age of 18, provided they're not dirt poor.

We also have no idea what Sony's plans are for the online pass program, so to ask what they mean by enhancing the experience, or to make other assumptions does us no good right now. There are a lot knee-jerk reactions and it's difficult to get any clearheaded thoughts when everyone wants to defend their "rights" to services they believe they deserve.

Unfortunately, the argument of what we "deserve" and what we should get for our money can never be resolved, regardless of the subject at hand.

No more posts in this thread, please.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Excelsior1
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 3:49:16 PM

i agree that $60 should be enough to grant access to all features of the game without an online pass program. again, i point out activision found a way to monetize the online part without implementing an online pass program. i prefer that model to an online pass system.

i just find it interesting that biggest online game out there doesn't have to resort to a gimmicky online pass system to recover costs of developement or maintain servers. i tend to steer clear of games that fearure any kind of online pass system.

let's see a publisher sells a game new with a code and you are granted access to all the features that the game offers for $60. buy used nope you don't get access to the full game.

i would never consider an online pass as a consumer friendly move. it just isn't.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 9:43:15 AM
Reply

I'm fine with the Online Game Pass stuff. It's understandable. Online play is an ongoing service provided by the publisher. It's not unreasonable for a publisher to ask for some money for providing a stable online play environment. I don't really see it as trying to destroy the resell market either. Reselling does have it's economic benefits whether that money goes directly back to the publisher or not.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 6 down Disagree with this comment

thj_1980
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 9:44:15 AM
Reply

Modern warfare runs $30 here same with World at War.

Modern warfare 2 runs about $30-$50

Black ops of course is still $60 or $70.

Just retailers trying to make as much money as they can squeeze out of these cod games as much as they can.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Dustinwp
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:06:55 AM
Reply

I only buy new because buying used is a ripoff, anyway. I completely agree with Highlander's takes on this topic. Plus, anything that helps combat GameStops price gouging on used games is fine by me!

Last edited by Dustinwp on 7/7/2011 10:07:13 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

sirbob6
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:08:04 AM
Reply

sigh... Time to find an additional job.
*looks to wallet*
Sorry my dear friend.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

thj_1980
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:09:46 AM
Reply

To me this train of making consumers have to pay for online that everybody seems to go it really seems anti-consumer friendly to me.

It's all about business and it always was, if it wasn't we wouldn't have games to play.

It's just another way to stop gamestop from selling their used games for $5 less.

Last time I was there, I seen a guy purchase a game used that had an online code. The vendor said that if you ever plan to go online you should get it new, if not get it used.

The guy wanted to play online sort of but wasn't sure, but still gave in the $5 less then new and bought it used.

This goes to show alone that video games are way to overpriced now.

I mean $60 alone just for a plastic case, a set of stapled paper and a disc is way too much. The value of it is just completely thrown out the window and that's one of the reasons why I hate buying full price for a game unless it's a collector's edition, because in a collector's edition you at least get more stuff so it's worth the money in most cases.

I fell the gaming industry is going off course and we are probably going to have to pay for the whole game over again, if we get it used like Steam PC disc games.

I also tend to let friend's borrow and borrow games form eachother, so looks like the chances of that ever happening again with these newer games will cease to happen.

Last edited by thj_1980 on 7/7/2011 10:11:03 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:58:54 AM

Online play is free to the purchaser of new games. It's up to used game retailers to ensure that customers buying used games are not disadvantaged by this.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 10:55:00 AM
Reply

As controversial as online passes may be, I think the publisher/developer of a game would probably have little to lose and something to gain from them. People who were going to buy it new will likely still do so, and if the people who were going to buy it used decide not to then it's no loss to the original publisher/developer since they were never going to profit from that purchase anyway.

And an online pass thing actually may not necessarily hurt people who buy games used all that much. There's probably a decent chance that it will motivate used game sellers to lower their prices to stay competitive.

And we also might do well to keep in mind that the used game market's days might be numbered anyway if as some have predicted everything is going to be digital sometime in the future.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:10:42 AM

I agree that used game retailers will have to adjust their pricing. After all a game that retails new for $60 and sells used for $55 (not an unusual event) is not such a bargain used if the game features an online pass. The new purchaser gets a free pass, the used purchaser does not. That means that a used purchaser has to obtain an online pass to pay. If that costs $10, then if the used retailer doesn't adjust their price the used game costs more than new. If used game customers are crazy enough to live with that, they get everything they deserve. Personally, I think that the used game retailers will gave no choice but to drop their used game price by the cost of the online pass.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Zen_Zarab
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:41:07 AM
Reply

I don't like buying used games... They just.. feel so dirty. >.<

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ludicrous_Liam
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 11:55:11 AM
Reply

This can backfire badly..

Sony think people who buy used-games and expect to go online will just pay the fee then developers, sony and the gamers alike are happy as larry. But I just see this as diminishing the online-play portion of certain game, because I just will not pay that fee, and I'm fairly certain most used-game puchasers won't either. So in retrospect, the amount of online players is going to decline.

If sony could form some cooperation with game stores to lessen the price, then fair enough. But I don't think that's about to happen too soon, is it?

That being said...every single one of my sony first paty games were bought brand spanking new :P But my point still stands..and I really do not like the sounds of this. :(

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:01:55 PM

A) it's not just Sony doing this
B) Sony is far from the first publisher to do this
C) since the majority of publishers are already doing this it was utterly inevitable that the game publishing arm of Sony would do this

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

dirdiggler
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:18:48 PM
Reply

U keep saying its win win for everyone, hows it a win for the guy who gets his games from gamefly? plays the game a week an sends it back, an you gotta pay 10$ for an online pass you'll never use again. Its just like anything if ppl accept it more will follow until its out of control like gas prices. I agree with part about the used game market an used game stores with there prices an also understand that the publisher of the game wants that money. Just doesn't seem right in my eyes everytime a new system comes out the price goes up never comes down even thought the price of blurays are pennys now. So for PS4 expect games to be 70$ an an with that get less product an more $ for dlc.

I don't post much but visit site everyday since before ps3 launched I believe an read alot of post, Highlander I respect your knowledge of computers an what not but you always come off cocky an ignorant to anyone that thinks different then you I don't know if you notice yourself doing it or not but maybe read some of your post. I don't want to get into a argument about it but just alittle FYI from someone on the outside.

Last edited by dirdiggler on 7/7/2011 12:26:17 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:34:06 PM

... And that's yet *another* valid argument against this, the customers of rentals. You're right!
The arguments against these passes are really starting to stockpile now, and we've yet to see any really good reasons *pro* this system.

I don't agree regarding Highlander though, I disagree with him on a regular basis but he mostly stay on topic. There are far, faaar worse around here.
Actually, he's one of the better ones.

... He's not always right though. Especially when the critics are against Sony, that tends to blurry his vision some. :)
*snickers*

Last edited by Beamboom on 7/7/2011 12:37:48 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:06:02 PM

Let Gamefly talk to the publishers about that and work out a deal, I would not be surprised to find that (with PSN especially) Gamefly could negotiate fixed term online passes that expire, so instead of the full price of the online pass, they could pay for a 1 month pass or some other kind of duration and fee arrangement.

Once again, it's the consumer that puts pressure on the supplier to work it out, just as the consumer needs to put pressure on the used game retailer regarding price. Game publishers are not beholden to game rental firms.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Dustinwp
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:59:05 PM

Gamefly offers free limited time online passes for all games that require online passes. If you rent Madden from Gamefly you can play online for seven days from the time you sign up on EA's website before your free EA sports pass expires.

Last edited by Dustinwp on 7/7/2011 2:01:50 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 3:58:37 PM

Oh...
I'll remove this one from the stockpile again, then.

It's still a pile though! ;)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Excelsior1
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 9:04:05 PM

having any type of code to gain access to the features that are advertised on the box is never a win for gamers. ea had a dumb code to gain access to the bonus content locked away on the disc in me2. you had to enter a one time code to gain access to all the extra dlc that was locked away on the disc. all that was downloaded from the cerebus netork was that comic.

guess what happened the first 4 days after me2's release? the cerebus network was down, and you could not even redeem the code. oh, that's alright i'll go ahead and start the game and redeem the code later to gain access to bonus content locked away on the disc. nope. once you did redeem your code you had to restart your game if wanted to play the extra content on the disc. that was just lame. i was so upset about that i called ea. they gave me a $20 code to use on psn as an apology for any inconvience...what i don't understand is why ea even had a code for me2. that's a freaking sp game.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Masa42
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 12:41:21 PM
Reply

Does this mean i gotta get a job lol

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

thj_1980
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 2:13:34 PM

Sure does if you feel like paying for new games.

I stick to used whenever I could,b ut not form ebgames/gamestop they rip you off major time.

Try Kijiji to save money on games.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PorkChopGamer
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:12:32 PM
Reply

Ben-

You SEEM to know all the facts and figures of how much everything costs and when profit sets in(you sneered at NT's claim that Heavenly Sword wasn't profitable at 1.5 mil), then make an article enlightening us poor plebieians.

Because you're implying that multiplayer is such a fantastic drain on the publisher, then what is the upside for producing it? Uncharted would sell extremely well on it's SP alone. If Sony wants to go after the COD, Halo and Gears sales numbers, then that is a risk THEY take, not us. Basically, they are using the consumer, be it used, renter, or, borrower, as a safety net, if their decision doesn't pan out.

If one disc bought new = unlimited server time until the server closes, then the disc tranferring ownership puts no more strain on the servers because it is still only one person acessing it at a time.

And the idea that if companies were making a profit, they still wouldn't try to squeeze more out of the consumer is just absurd...

Agree with this comment 7 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:23:51 PM

You do not - apparently - understand the concept of customers paying for content and services that they use. The game on the disc is the game on the disc. The additional elements delivered via a game server run by a publisher are additional elements. If you buy the game used, you have no customer relationship for that game with the publisher, and so you have no access to the additional elements not on the disc. Pay for the online pass, you establish that customer relationship and gain access to the additional elements provided via the publisher's servers.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

PorkChopGamer
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 1:37:37 PM

I get season passes to the Baltimore Orioles and Ravens every year, but when I give those tickets out if I can't make a game, my friends aren't charged to sit down in those seats, for the cost of the general maintenance and facilitating of the stadiums. I'm sure those cost are high, as well. Why should games be any different? The $60 grants access to all the features that come with it. If I choose to lend or give it away, that access should be transferred because it has already been paid for. I sure don't get money back for MP I don't play.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

jimmyhandsome
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 2:08:38 PM

@PCG

Ouch, an O's fan? At least they have Showalter around to keep things interesting nowadays.

Great analogy with season tickets though. Thats like making people who buy tickets off of stubhub pay an extra for beer or food.

I agree with you 100% about the online access though. These are not pirated games, or games that people obtained illegally. The used game market my not directly benefit the publisher, but I still really have a problem with how publishers think they have the right to charge for these online passes as if they already haven't been compensated.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 2:53:47 PM

I'm not bothering with you anymore. You exist to start fights and cause problems, and of course, you know more than everyone.

So we'll just leave it at that.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 3:11:40 PM

And that's a retarded analogy.

You're paying for the tickets and you go see a ball game. The people running the park will provide for you during the time the game is on. They're not open 24 hours for you. They're not providing you with other "content" besides the ball game for free. They're not employing a bunch of extra people and maintaining other facilities beyond the ball game.

Why is it so difficult to grasp that multiplayer consists of a LOT of resources that go beyond normal development costs? That it's a CONTINUOUS cost, long after the game has been delivered, to developers and publishers that we utilize - in the case of the PSN - entirely for free?

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 7/7/2011 3:12:15 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

jimmyhandsome
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 3:19:44 PM

Ben-

Its not difficult to grasp. The developer (or publisher) CHOOSES to integrated online MP to their games. They do this to attract MORE sales. Yes it costs more to do, but it also becomes attractive to a different kind of gamer. Look at Uncharted. It went from a SP-only (great SP btw) to a full out MP AND SP game. You think they just did that for fun? They do it for more sales.

We don't need to feel bad for Sony because it costs them money to maintain the servers that they choose to integrate in their first party games.


Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 3:22:02 PM

I'm not sure if I dare raise my voice here, but I'd just like to mention, casually and with the best of intentions, that the typical multiplayer round-based games are hosted by the gamers, one of the clients act as the host (server).
It's just the initial matchmaking that is done by central servers, and that's not *that* much of a load. I'd say about the same load as a website with a decent abount of visitors.
To offer this service free of charge is more or less industry standard since the days of Quake, or even before that.

... and now I gently walk away again and silently close the door behind me. :)


Last edited by Beamboom on 7/7/2011 3:25:57 PM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PorkChopGamer
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 3:35:19 PM

Yeah, it seems plausible that the monitoring and maintenance of a game server is the equivalent of the upkeep on an entire sports stadium that hosts hundreds of events besides sports, as well. That sounds patently ridiculous. The analogy is solid because your argument is that it is for the cost to maintain the servers, which is included in the $60 for the game. Well, the price to run the stadium is also included in the price of the ticket, and there is no extra fee for giving it to someone because they haven't 'established a relationship' or paid their share to enjoy the facilities upkept by the owners.

Like I said before, if you know so much about the finances, telling every one else to 'do their homework', then, by all means, share with us in numbers. Certainly, it will shed more light than your current stance of, 'Uh, it's a lot'. Until then, I'll assume you really don't know specifics.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 4:17:37 PM

I see. I need numbers but you don't, right PorkChop? Of course.

jimmy: The only part that matters in your entire post is this- "Yes it costs more to do."

Yes, it does. And somehow, it costs exactly the same as a game with no multiplayer at all.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Dustinwp
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 4:35:56 PM

@PorkChopGamer

Sports teams also have merchandise sales and revenue sharing to help pay for stadium maintenance. Game developers do not have the luxury of jersey sales or have revenue sharing. Everything in sports is also licensed by that sport to be sure no loss of profit. Game devs/pubs don't have this luxury neither.

Last edited by Dustinwp on 7/7/2011 4:36:22 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

jimmyhandsome
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 4:45:37 PM

Hmmm, I don't think we're going to get anywhere, Ben.

With your reasoning games that cost more to make should be priced higher? LA Noire costs the same as Portal 2, but I bet the cost to make the two are MILLIONS apart.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 4:53:34 PM

@Dustinwp

Thas not quite how it works. If that was the case we wouldn't have to major sports in lockouts with owners claiming monetary loss.

@ben

His analogy is legit

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 5:25:16 PM

jimmy: No, by my reasoning, every single game basically has multiplayer and every single time, we basically pay nothing to play on the service for months, even years after the game is released.

Believe that costs nothing if you want.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 7/7/2011 9:57:18 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Dustinwp
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 5:30:33 PM

Really? There's no profit sharing in the NFL? Owners see no revenue from merchandise sales? Owners claiming Monetary losses is called greed! The NFL owners want 8 billion dollars instead of the 7 billion they've gotten in the past.

So if I'm wrong, why don't you explain to me how it works, then?

Last edited by Dustinwp on 7/7/2011 5:44:31 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Friday, July 08, 2011 @ 8:10:25 AM

@Dustinwp

Sigh, I didn't say there wasn't revenue sharing. What I said is that's not quite how it works. Revenue sharing is between the owners and the respective player association/unions.

For example, NBA under the now expired agreement the players got 57.5% of the revenue sharing. Owners are siting losses because of this and the salaries paid to players and the exceptions that can be made.

NFL is slightly different as they have profit sharing which is done amongst the teams and is done evenly. Even then ticket sales, merchandise sales, etc. don't cover all expenses for a owner. I could go on..I wasn't saying you were wrong..There's just more to it and isn't cut and dry

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Dustinwp
Friday, July 08, 2011 @ 8:21:29 AM

I know it's not that cut and dry! That's why it's stupid to compare sports to video game development! That was my point! Even though you said his analogy was legit, it is not! Get off your high horse slugga_status! Maybe if you didn't have the blinders on you would have understood my point in comparing video game devs/puds to sports teams.



Last edited by Dustinwp on 7/8/2011 8:28:19 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Friday, July 08, 2011 @ 2:14:11 PM

Dustinwp

I'm on no high horse. His analogy is legit. All he's saying is that if he gives a ticket to a friend they're still entitled to everything that ticket covers. Nobody at the ticket booth is going to charge you extra b/c you didn't purchase the ticket from them. Which is precisely what the "passes" do. It's a fee they charge you b/c you didn't buy the game so they restrict access to it unless you pay them.

btw..only one of the sporting lockouts is legit(nba). Don't see how the NFL can't figure out how to split $40 billion

Last edited by slugga_status on 7/8/2011 2:14:20 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

thj_1980
Sunday, July 10, 2011 @ 5:21:30 PM

How ocme non of you guys that are agaisnt porkchop here can't at least sit back and think wow wouldn' that be great!!!!!

Like OMG the world is bad enough let this man express this wonderful idea.

Like he said, he gives the pass to his friend his friend should be entitled the right to do so.

Unless you feel like spending the rest of your life standing next to him telling him what he can do and can't do with a pass, then you are pathetic.

Not implying this to anyone but saying that in the general means, so anyone reading this don't get offended.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

AcHiLLiA
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 2:59:27 PM
Reply

About this whole article, some things I like about it and some things I don't. Their is alot of people here that agree's and disagree's. So I guess will have to c what's happening in the future for this.

Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 7/7/2011 3:00:20 PM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 4:50:01 PM
Reply

I love this website!

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 4:58:20 PM

Me too - especially the complete and utter chaos in these kind of discussions right here. :D

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Deleted User
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 5:13:40 PM
Reply

I buy just about all my games new so it doesn't bother me, these passes.

Funny thing is that I have all these unused passes on me. I never used the passes for Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit, Dead Space 2 or Tiger Woods: The Masters so they are just sitting here collecting dust. Kind of feel guilty not including them when I traded them away.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 6:26:09 PM

Well to make yourself not feel guilty you could give them away to the needy!

Or you could charge $10 for them. ;)

Last edited by bigrailer19 on 7/7/2011 6:26:48 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 9:51:45 PM

Ebay!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 6:22:41 PM
Reply

Seriously though, it's not really a big deal. I don't know the percentage of used games being bought but I'm sure it's a lot. I'm guessing more than 15%. If that's the case developers are losing a lot of money.

I personally don't think this will have an effect on the SP of games. Developers are only charging for online passes to those who don't buy a retail copy. So as a large I don't think we will see an impact on SP.

Last edited by bigrailer19 on 7/7/2011 6:24:56 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

amonte
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 8:42:20 PM
Reply

This topic is very controversial to say the least. You will always have people on a different side of the fence.

I think what bothers me the most is the obvious scheme to gain more revenue. It is a scheme and an inconvenience brought upon the consumer, Period. Not only that, but it automatically depreciates the value of something you paid full price for. How? Well if I decide to sell or trade it, the value of my copy would be less, since im selling/trading with a key and fundamental component of the game missing (online, since the purchaser would have to pay extra in order to access).

Also, whats stopping each and every single developer/publisher from jumping on the “hey, lets start charging for an online pass since everyone else is doing it, EVEN SONY!” bandwagon. Heck, I bet it was EA that influenced Sony. So whose to say Sony, a big player and a trend setter, wont influence others from doing the same? Now the mentality is going to be “if we dont follow, were leaving money on the table”, and if sony is justifiying these actions, others will use the same reasoning for justifying theirs.

I dont think people realise that this isnt just about an “online pass”, but rather a small and subtle shift in the industry to continue nickel and diming consumers, with a “justifiable” excuses or pretenses.

The same thing occured this generation with the out of control, and many times outrageous DLC. Sometimes its VERY OBVIOUS and APPARANT that content was purposely withheld from the game/disc in order to sell it later as DLC. Some companies selling DLC even BEFORE THE GAME LAUNCHING. People accepted it, bought into it, and even EMBRACED this concept. Now its considered normal for a game to have DLC. Im sure games are developed in parallel with DLC, and find ways to implement it as such when it could have been put into the actual retail copy.

Why bring up DLC? Just to show another subtle shift that occured in the industry, with every purpose and intent to nickel and dime consumers, that is somehow justifiable, and is now embraced and considered normal among gamers. This online pass is no different.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

amonte
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 8:42:22 PM
Reply

This generation a lot of good things have happened for gaming but also a lot of bad things. Having things that should be included as paid DLC, including things on the disc but having to pay an extra mandatory payment to access it (ex: MvC3), DLC that can/should be free unless proven with legit and true facts by the devs/publishers that the DLC they are trying to charge for has to be charged for and can´t be given to their consumers for free (ex: a new character in Mortal Kombat, LittleBigPlanet, a few maps in a shooter), paying to play online (ex: Xbox Live) and online pass.

DLC that can/should be free SHOULD be given to THEIR CONSUMERS for free, and there´re absolutely no excuses that can be said about this, look at how many games´ DLC, for example, Burnout Paradise.

Games should be developed like if DLC didn´t exist. Develop and add everything and if something wasn´t added because the devs didn´t have enough time, no sweat, just add it via a patch or FREE DLC. Not including things in a game or having things in a game locked and than releasing it as paid DLC is buying a game that is not 100% and than paying EXTRA/MORE for the complete game. So using the current prices, you´ll pay $60 for a game that isn´t 100% and than paying $20-30+ to have the game at 100%.

If any DLC CANNOT be free by any means, PROVE IT with real facts, than it´s fair that it´s paid DLC.

Paying to play online is ridiculous. It should be free and there is absolutely no excuse that can be said about it, both PSN and Steam are free to play online. Now if there are any features/online features that cannot be free by any means, than also prove it with real facts, than it´s fair to charge for it, and if you want that feature you would have to pay for it, it´s absolutely fair.

Online pass is also another horrible thing that has happened to gaming.

If devs/publishers want to keep people from buying used games than have reasons for people to want to buy the game new instead. DLC that can´t be free, for the people that buy the game new they get it free, people that buy the game new could also get DLC earlier, give points in multiplayer games to people that buy the game new, unlock things in multiplayer right from the start (ex: weapons, abilities), access to betas is really good, things like all that that are reasons for people to buy the game new instead of used but they can´t be things that should be in the game no matter what wether the game was bought new or used.

There isn´t any type of crap like this for anything else being bought or sold used, not even movies.

ALSO, if you want people to buy game new, make the game GOOD and charge less for games. It´s not just because of the crysis going on, but if there is a really good game that is out and the game is priced more attractive people will buy it new. People don´t want to wait until someone sells the game to play it, they will buy it new.

I have been gaming for almost twenty years and I will NEVER pay to play online and I will NEVER pay for DLC that should be free, I will NEVER buy a game that has online pass and I will NEVER buy games that are not released at 100%, but if I ever do I will buy it used because I won´t give the devs money for releasing a game that is not 100%.

Gamers should take action now and let the companies know, not pay to play online, not pay for DLC that should be free and not support games that fall under any of these categories and DEMAND that these things change! WE are the gamers, WE are the consumers and WE are the only ones that can change all the horrible things in gaming. If we don´t buy the crap devs will not be able to do it. Why do you think there´re all these horrible things in gaming like paid DLC that should be free? because we allowed it and we payed for it. We need to take action now before things get worse!

Last edited by amonte on 7/7/2011 8:44:15 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

amonte
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 8:44:30 PM
Reply

These little “project $10″ isn’t a way to cover dev costs but more of a way to take $ from Gamestop and other used resellers.

Let’s say I buy the game new and play it online for a full year. The dev gets whatever portion of my $60 to pay for their work + servers + bandwidth, etc. etc. Let’s call this value “x”.

Now let’s say there was no “online pass” and my friend bought new, played for a little bit then sold to ‘stop or on craigslist, whatever. Let’s say throughout the course of the same year, 4 people played the game and played online. The dev would still get “x” from the initial purchase + $0 for any additional purchase.

With the online pass, the dev now gets x + (4 * y) dollars where “y” is the amount of money the dev gets from the online pass purchase.

So even though the same game is played for the same amount of time on their servers, thus using up the same number of resources, etc. etc. the dev gets more money by having the online pass if the game is ever sold/resold on the used game market; that’s it and that’s all.

That´s 100% true and there´s nothing that can be said about it.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

amonte
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 8:44:44 PM
Reply

The companies doing this are just trying to milk that sale beyond the original payment, because we allow it. The companies are already paid for the game. Used game sales have nothing to do with the developer from that point on. We aren’t talking about filesharing here, the game was bought by one person, then it left that person’s possession and entered another. There is no duplicate, that single game is still a single game

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

amonte
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 8:49:01 PM
Reply

When a game is sold as used SOMEONE has bought it before, so the dev got their money out of it. It’s not like retailers got 30 copies of a game on launch day, opened them and sold them as used for pure profit. Going after the consumer is not the correct stance to take. Give us a better incentive to buy new, (Dead Space 2 and Alice: MR included a whole other game for free when bought new. More of that, less useless ******** like character skins) or better yet, quit shoving $60 pieces of **** out the door.



Last edited by amonte on 7/7/2011 8:49:42 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 9:53:45 PM

Flood much? You can use the reply button. All the points you make are remade and answered over and over in the above comments so I will simply refer you to them.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Bloodysilence19
Friday, July 08, 2011 @ 4:08:43 AM
Reply

I don't see why the pubs and devs just don't take a percent out of the stores selling the used games, like 10%-15%. The movie business takes a percent out of stores who rent movies out why cant it be the same in used games. I get it Pubs and dev want money cause their not getting nickle out of the used games, but when certain games say duke nukem forever isn't worth $60, so selling it cheaper as a used copy seems fair. Everybody looks for bargains and such its everywhere so why does selling Used video games any different. Its not like dev aren't charging us arm in a leg for dlc that was actually part of the game at first but was cut out to be dlc. The fact of having to pay to play a game online is ridiculous, i get MMO's having to sub cause your getting way more feats add-on etc not just playing the game online. Isn't a little weird that MMO's are starting to go free to play but games on consoles are going pay to play. Last people who have gf now are getting major screwed. Now the person who rents the game has to buy a code to play online, when their only going to keep the game 1-2 weeks.


Last edited by Bloodysilence19 on 7/8/2011 4:10:26 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, July 08, 2011 @ 9:23:12 AM

Gamefly apparently has special onetime use codes that enable online play in such games for a specific period of time, so it's not as bad as all that.

Also, used game retailers won't give up 10-15% of the revenue to publishers. If you sit and think about how you can force the retailers to give up the revenue, the best method is this. The new buyer get's a free pass, and the used game buyer hast to buy a pass, which ultimately reduces the amount that the used game retailer can get away with charging for a used game and passes some of the used game revenue on to the publisher/developer. IT may not be ideal, but it is a very logical solution to a problem created by the retailers.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Bloodysilence19
Friday, July 08, 2011 @ 2:56:46 PM

They don't give codes out unless you buy it new of course on there, but renting the game out they don't give out the online codes. BB the only rental place i know that has the online codes, but its cause they have the actually retail game cases now with everything you get from buying it new booklet and all.

They can give it up if Pubs push for it. Retailers who sell used games do what pawn shops do. They buy what your selling for cheap than sell it for more so they make a profit and you barley get enough. I get Pubs and Dev want money, who doesn't when they work really hard on something. Its the fact their getting to greedy and demanding from us the consumer making us pay more money already such as dlc that should be already in the game in the first place. Either way imo the consumer is getting the shaft on these.

Last edited by Bloodysilence19 on 7/8/2011 2:58:56 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, July 08, 2011 @ 4:39:00 PM

Someone further up was commenting that GameFly issued limited term pass codes when renting games. I don't use Gamefly, so I was going by that information.

The point is though, that this online pass stuff doesn't really hurt the consumer. GameStop and other used game retailers can only overcharge for as long as customers put up with it. If customers demand it they will include an online pass with used games as part of the purchase. If consumers demand that game rental places provide some online pass mechanism, then game rental companies can negotiate with the game publishers to get a deal on limited duration activation codes.

It's those retailers and rental companies that are the target here.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Sunday, July 10, 2011 @ 2:30:15 AM

As I understand it, EA *always* allows 7 days of free online play as part of their Online Pass program; it's not Gamefly-specific. I think the aforementioned poster is mistaken.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Robochic
Friday, July 08, 2011 @ 7:54:48 PM
Reply

This to me is ok, i do usually buy new unless it's a sweet as deal (which never happens at gamestop) anywase I just wait awhile when it goes down in price unless it's my fav game franchise IE uncharted

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ather
Sunday, July 10, 2011 @ 1:27:57 PM
Reply

Not like these used game buyers would have bought the game with no other option. And if you like the game, you might by the sequel new and collector's edition. Used game market is really an investment for the publishers.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

donb1to
Sunday, July 10, 2011 @ 1:41:04 PM
Reply

wtf do they mean "never seeing any profit from that massive secondhand industry"???? they're effin crazy if you ask me, i mean does the car industry see some of the money of used cars?? of course not, once you buy something, whatever it is, when you're done with it you can sell it if it well damn pleases you. I don't like the idea that friends won't be able to lend me games or viceversa, and sucks for them cause it seems easier to hack those single player (not online) games. This will backfire.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

tryd1
Sunday, July 10, 2011 @ 8:37:41 PM
Reply

Are you guys really this delusional? This is basically screaming, "GREED," everywhere. If one person buys it, the developers have just made $60. This is simply bogus. I can't believe they are implementing such a lame system into a system that's already working for most of us consumers. If I buy a game on Ebay for $30 used, I except it to have all the same features that the buyer had when he bought it for $60. WHY CHANGE A SYSTEM THAT WORKS?

Last edited by tryd1 on 7/10/2011 8:40:01 PM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Paulk003
Monday, July 11, 2011 @ 1:23:57 AM
Reply

I think that instead of milking consumers with other fees for games they should focus on things like cross game chat and improved networks, now I would be more than willing to pay for that.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

Got Madden NFL 25?
Yes, and it's great!
Yeah, but I'm a little disappointed.
No, but I plan to get it soon.
...they still make sports games?

Previous Poll Results