Sony Doing 'An EA?' - PSN Pass

Robin · Jul 6, 2011

Resistance 3 is to ship with something called a PSN Pass which is thought to be Sony's version of EA's online code where second hand copies have to buy a new activation to use the games online features.

It states on the Resistance box that "PSN Pass Network features only available in countries that have PlayStation Store" which suggests you will need store activation to play online.

Personally I think this whole concept stinks, its just them trying to screw more money out of console gamers who pay a lot more for games anyway and is especially insulting to those one XBL who have to pay for online anyway. It really does feel like you don't own anything you buy, if I choose to sell or buy something second hand companies don't deserve that money.

Also Sony pledged that online would always be free for all, now its online is free if you bought the game new. I get 3rd parties doing it because EA is EA but first party is really sad.

More DRM every day....

Bonefork · Jul 6, 2011

You don't own software, you can only purchase a license and sometimes a piece of plastic. The only thing that's changing is that the piece of plastic is no longer the proof of purchase - it's been like that almost forever in the computer world.

The only thing that's really unfair about this is that the code (for EA games) expires after 1 year, which is BS considering they don't stop selling the games after the year is up.

Northstar · Jul 6, 2011

Why should you get to take up their server space without paying?

It takes money to run servers.

Flerbizky · Jul 6, 2011

Justin
Why should you get to take up their server space without paying?

It takes money to run servers.

Yes. But you paid for that when you bought the game. Selling the game on when you're no longer interested doesn't take up more CPU time...

Northstar · Jul 6, 2011

Flerbizky
Yes. But you paid for that when you bought the game. Selling the game on when you're no longer interested doesn't take up more CPU time...

And if you buy the game new you don't have to buy the online pass. Developers make nothing from used game sales, that is why DLC is so prevalent and these passes are becoming more frequent.

Lets say I run a server, it costs $1,000/month and I sell games at $50/copy(for the sake of this example its all profit). Now I sell 10/month, that gives me $500, now the people that bought the game sold the game on to another person. Now 20 people bascially have had the game but you only made a profit on 10 which means you are out $500 and are basically back at the beginning and now have a net loss on your hands.

(Keep in mind those numbers are just an example, I have no clue what it actually costs to run a server but I'm guessing not cheap)

Terronium-12 · Jul 6, 2011

Justin
Why should you get to take up their server space without paying?

It takes money to run servers.

And then people wonder why some PC gamers are snobs when it comes to things like this. Now you know why.

Tired Tyres · Jul 6, 2011

Justin
And if you buy the game new you don't have to buy the online pass. Developers make nothing from used game sales, that is why DLC is so prevalent and these passes are becoming more frequent.

Lets say I run a server, it costs $1,000/month and I sell games at $50/copy(for the sake of this example its all profit). Now I sell 10/month, that gives me $500, now the people that bought the game sold the game on to another person. Now 20 people are playing the game but you only made a profit on 10 which means you are out $500 and are basically back at the beginning and now have a net loss on your hands.

(Keep in mind those numbers are just an example, I have no clue what it actually costs to run a server but I'm guessing not cheap)

Except that the people who bought the game no longer own it or use it. They sold it. Now someone else uses it. There is no change in numbers. It is still 10.

The costs are not changing because more people are not actually using the service anymore. Use of the service can't exceed the number of units sold in the first place.

That is why these online passes are unacceptable.

icelt · Jul 6, 2011

The most recent Resistance title sold approximately 2+ million copies WW. I think the latest figures I saw estimated about $30 of the RRP goes to the publisher and developer. So that ends up being somewhere in the neighborhood of $60-ish million to Sony & Insomniac to both make a reasonable profit on the game AND keep certain hardware assets functional for those that purchased the product. So clearly there is plenty of room in that amount of sales to both make some money (ie profit) and cover the expenses of running ones business (ie in this case keeping servers up).

Now the question that everyone is really asking, is that ENOUGH margin for the developer and publisher to make some profit and keep their business going? I for one think it is plenty of margin and have little sympathy for the arguments against it.

Personally I'd rather pay an upfront fee to use the PSN, which let's face it is gonna happen sooner or later anyway, than have these back door tricks being introduced into the market place. Then again I'm a dying breed as I prefer my media in the form of real atoms & electrons that I can hold in my hands.

Northstar · Jul 6, 2011

Tired Tyres
Except that the people who bought the game no longer own it or use it. They sold it. Now someone else uses it. There is no change in numbers. It is still 10.

Server load has nothing to do with what I'm getting at.

Let me try and put it another way.

The Server costs $1,000/month to operate. That means I have to sell at least 20 games new a month to keep it running. I however am only able to sell 10 new games a month as the other 10 are sold used(i.e. I make nothing from the sale). Now instead of making the $1000/month required I'm only making $500/month since people have been buying used.

Coxis · Jul 6, 2011

I see their point but that's ridiculous... innocent things like borrowing a game from a friend will result affected from this.

I know they're different industries, but this would be like having to pay royalties to the auto makers when buying an used car.

ell470 · Jul 6, 2011

Coxis
I see their point but that's ridiculous... innocent things like borrowing a game from a friend will result affected from this.

I know they're different industries, but this would be like having to pay royalties to the auto makers when buying an used car.

How about renting games? Does that give you online pass?

icelt · Jul 6, 2011

ell470
How about renting games? Does that give you online pass?

If you are the 1st person to rent the title, then yes. Or you happen to be lucky enough to rent a copy whose code has not been registered yet.

Tired Tyres · Jul 6, 2011

Justin
Server load has nothing to do with what I'm getting at.

Let me try and put it another way.

The Server costs $1,000/month to operate. That means I have to sell at least 20 games new a month to keep it running. I however am only able to sell 10 new games a month as the other 10 are sold used(i.e. I make nothing from the sale). Now instead of making the $1000/month required I'm only making $500/month since people have been buying used.

I get what you mean. Solution = Make games that are so good nobody wants to sell their copy. Therefore everybody buys new.

ell470 · Jul 6, 2011

icelt
If you are the 1st person to rent the title, then yes. Or you happen to be lucky enough to rent a copy whose code has not been registered yet.

Then they pretty much don't care about people who rent? (not that I've ever rented a game, just thinking)

Just remembered EA put an 3 or 4 days free online on the latest NHL, so there might be solutions

LaBounti · Jul 6, 2011

ell470
Then they pretty much don't care about people who rent? (not that I've ever rented a game, just thinking)

Just remembered EA put an 3 or 4 days free online on the latest NHL, so there might be solutions

Why should they? How much DLC are renters going to buy anyway? Only time they will care for a renter is if the rented game some how killed their PS3.

This is a good idea to me. Plus the Box art by far is much worse than the online pass. No one is getting screwed, they do not have to play the specific game online. If its is that important for a specific game then they should bite the bullet and support the specific game they absolutely must play online.

ell470 · Jul 6, 2011

LaBounti
Why should they? How much DLC are renters going to buy anyway? Only time they will care for a renter is if the rented game some how killed their PS3.

This is a good idea to me. Plus the Box art by far is much worse than the online pass. No one is getting screwed, they do not have to play the specific game online. If its is that important for a specific game then they should bite the bullet and support the specific game they absolutely must play online.

I didn't mean the dlc, I meant online pass for online multiplayer!

HOODFIELD · Jul 6, 2011

Bonefork
The only thing that's really unfair about this is that the code (for EA games) expires after 1 year, which is BS considering they don't stop selling the games after the year is up.

I don't think it matters because EA doesn't support past sports games. Once the new one is out the servers for the old one go down within 3 months. I think NBA Live 10 is the only exception. But somebody correct me if I'm wrong as I don't know where official information on this can be found.

And who buys NEW old sports games anyways? I'm not defending this Online Pass it's total garbage, but I understand they are losing money to places like Gamestop so it's necessary.

ell470 · Jul 6, 2011

HOODFIELD
I don't think it matters because EA doesn't support past sports games. Once the new one is out the servers for the old one go down within 3 months. I think NBA Live 10 is the only exception. But somebody correct me if I'm wrong as I don't know where official information on this can be found.

And who buys NEW old sports games anyways? I'm not defending this Online Pass it's total garbage, but I understand they are losing money to places like Gamestop so it's necessary.

I tend to buy EA Sports games about a year after release, because I don't think their minor tweaks & updates are worth full price

Sureboss · Jul 6, 2011

Tired Tyres
I get what you mean. Solution = Make games that are so good nobody wants to sell their copy. Therefore everybody buys new.

Problem is there will always be genres and games that have a limited lifecycle. I really like InFamous, but it's got 2 playthroughs and then I won't touch it again. You've also got the biggest problem that exists in developing a game and that is appealing to millions of different opinions.

I feel the dev can do exactly what they want, it's their software not yours, used game sales has a massive impact, it's as big as piracy, especially when you are console based which has lower piracy rates than PC.

Though I didn't know that the EA ones only last a year, that is ridiculous. Codemaster's VIP pass for DIRT 3 is about £5-6, I think that's more than good enough. Especially as the reason why many buy 2nd hand is to save a good £10-20 on release prices. If I were buying 2nd hand, I'd be more than happy to pay £5-10, as I'm saving more than that from buying a new copy.

There are a lot of misconceptions around that don't help. Piracy rate in one of our markets (on PC) which is pretty much the worst country for it is 100:1 and it's a budget game too. It costs a lot to develop, particularly games with high end graphics. A dev getting $30M out of $90M total game sales may sound like a big amount of money (and that's roughly an average of how much a dev normally gets, can be lower), but development is expensive because you will be employing the best in the business and that's not cheap. I generally think gamers interpretations of how much money can be and is made is a long way from the truth. I can certainly speak for the UK industry in that it has been steadily contracting with many companies going under.

Of course that isn't to mean that some aren't taking the piss, like EA, but just because some have those intentions, doesn't mean they all do.

icelt · Jul 6, 2011

It is not exactly on topic but personally I really support the healthy attitude of Runic games regarding their software, piracy and DRM:

E3 2011: Torchlight pirated over 5 million times in China, Runic CEO: “That’s fine with us.”

www.pcgamer.com
by Evan Lahti at 09:53pm June 9 2011

After getting hands-on with Torchlight 2's brawlin', just-announced Berserker class at E3, I had a chat with Runic Games' CEO, Max Schaefer about T2's just-announced LAN support, Runic's refreshing attitude about DRM and piracy (and why "millions," of illegal downloads in China don't bother him) and the the possibility of 50-player multiplayer.

Here's a selection of direct quotes from Max Schaefer, formerly a VP at Blizzard North and one of the frontmen on Diablo.

On Asian piracy:
"Millions and millions of copies of Torchlight downloaded from the illicit market in certain Asian territories. And that's fine with us. We knew it was gonna happen. For us, we kind of see it as, down the road, we're building an audience. We've long since announced that we're going to be doing an MMO, and y'know, we kind of view it as a marketing tool for us. We're going to have millions of people who are familiar with our franchise, familiar with our style, and who are going to be ready customers when we do a global MMO."

On DRM:
"You're fighting against an immovable force by complaining and being paranoid about and all that. We figure if we're just nice to our customers, charge a low price for our game to begin with, don't over-burden them with crazy DRM, and customers will be nice to us too. And so far, they have been."

"We got a lot of letters from people saying 'Hey, I pirated your game, but it was really cool, so I bought it.' Y'know, we're cool with that, we're not as concerned about that sort of thing as other companies, especially if it makes our honest players inconvenienced. We assume that everyone is an honest player, and we want to make their experience as cool as possible."

On LAN support, which was just confirmed:
"I don't know why everyone else doesn't do it. I understand that a lot of other companies want to run you through their portal to expose you to the other products they have and make it easy for you to click a button and buy other stuff. But we're a small company--we have Torchlight and Torchlight 2. There's really no reason for us to do that sort of thing. And it's something have requested, and we're happy to be able to do it."

On the prospect of community-created 50-player multiplayer:
"We're releasing the tools that we use to make the game. We're not dumbing them down at all or disabling anything--you'll literally be able to change everything in the game, among that the maximum number of players that can get into a game. So yeah, if you make a level that's appropriate for a ton of guys--we haven't done 50--but it's theoretically possible, it should work perfectly well."

HOODFIELD · Jul 6, 2011

ell470
I tend to buy EA Sports games about a year after release, because I don't think their minor tweaks & updates are worth full price

But do you buy it new or used? And do you/can you play online?

Tornado · Jul 6, 2011

Justin
Why should you get to take up their server space without paying?

It takes money to run servers.

Money which was paid when the game was bought new by the first person.

kimi123 · Jul 6, 2011

I never buy used games and this starts with R3 right, they just want people to buy original games and if some one decides to buy used then for online have to pay some amount. Fair enough. I just hope they never charge for playing online and people have option for PSN plus service.

Northstar · Jul 6, 2011

Toronado
Money which was paid when the game was bought new by the first person.

Read my other posts in this thread.

Justin
Server load has nothing to do with what I'm getting at.

Let me try and put it another way.

The Server costs $1,000/month to operate. That means I have to sell at least 20 games new a month to keep it running. I however am only able to sell 10 new games a month as the other 10 are sold used(i.e. I make nothing from the sale). Now instead of making the $1000/month required I'm only making $500/month since people have been buying used.

Robin · Jul 6, 2011

Justin
Why should you get to take up their server space without paying?

In addition to what others have already stated just by purchasing a PS3 and adhering to the Playstation Network user agreement I should be entitled to 'take up server space' for free at the very least with first party titles. It was Sony's pledge to offer and keep online play free for all users and was a big deal breaker in choosing the console.

As for XBL users it even more ridiculous, they already pay a large subscription to maintain servers and shouldn't have to pay anything additional to use online functionality in games. As far as I'm aware (might be wrong though) even 3rd party games run on MS servers on the 360.

This charge has no real purpose, its just another stealth charge to claw back some extra cash from you selling your own private property. If the developer wants to make more money... make buying the game new more attractive by giving special DLC or a special price, do not blackmail people by holding back features which are main components of the game.

From reading the comments in here I didn't realise that the EA codes expire even if new games are bought way after the release, so you could be buying older games new from someone like amazon with the online component already dead in box, that's even more disgusting.

Also if rental games have the online component dead after the guy that borrows it first that's pure stupidity. If it's true I certainly won't ever be renting. Online is such a major component these days games can be pointless without it.

Sure what they are doing is legal, but I feel its immoral. To me its more about the state of DRM these days than about used games.

ivoyared · Jul 6, 2011

Congratulations, Sony. Now I want your ass hacked again.

Coxis · Jul 6, 2011

icelt
It is not exactly on topic but personally I really support the healthy attitude of Runic games regarding their software, piracy and DRM:

That's awesome no wonder the guy left Blizzard...

TheBlueHusky · Jul 6, 2011

**** THAT S***
All I have to say

CaptainHarlock · Jul 6, 2011

Is this really that outrageous if you're buying the game new? Whether you're paying $60 for the game or if you're paying $30 for it when it's on sale or a greatest hit, you still get the online pass. If you want to try the game online, what's to stop you from going to a friend's house and asking "Hey man, can I try Resistance 3 online for a bit?". Fine not everybody has that luxury, but there's always reviews and gameplay video you can look at and get an idea. Also aren't we forgetting about DEMOS? It seems like we have more options than we want to remember, and some just want to be outraged gamers.

CaptainHarlock · Jul 6, 2011

Robin.
In addition to what others have already stated just by purchasing a PS3 and adhering to the Playstation Network user agreement I should be entitled to 'take up server space' for free at the very least with first party titles. It was Sony's pledge to offer and keep online play free for all users and was a big deal breaker in choosing the console.

As for XBL users it even more ridiculous, they already pay a large subscription to maintain servers and shouldn't have to pay anything additional to use online functionality in games. As far as I'm aware (might be wrong though) even 3rd party games run on MS servers on the 360.

This charge has no real purpose, its just another stealth charge to claw back some extra cash from you selling your own private property. If the developer wants to make more money... make buying the game new more attractive by giving special DLC or a special price, do not blackmail people by holding back features which are main components of the game.

From reading the comments in here I didn't realise that the EA codes expire even if new games are bought way after the release, so you could be buying older games new from someone like amazon with the online component already dead in box, that's even more disgusting.

Also if rental games have the online component dead after the guy that borrows it first that's pure stupidity. If it's true I certainly won't ever be renting. Online is such a major component these days games can be pointless without it.

Sure what they are doing is legal, but I feel its immoral. To me its more about the state of DRM these days than about used games.

So you activate the code as soon as you play the game for the first time. What's the big deal? Games rarely sit on a shelf for more than a year, especially games like Madden, NBA Live, or NHL games. And if you're buying the game at a steep discount then the extra ten bucks is not going to be a king's ransom. Seems like it's a wash to me.

Sony Doing 'An EA?' - PSN Pass

The Original Party Worm

Weltanschauung

The Original Party Worm

For My Mom, Always

The Original Party Worm

it figures!

it figures!

it figures!

The Good Life

it figures!

Tanned and Lipstick'd

The Good Life

The Original Party Worm

Similar threads