Sony Doing 'An EA?' - PSN Pass

[yoman297]

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

I would say a +1, but I'm thinking the reason why Sony is doing this is to prevent hacking.

This is still bullcrap, though.

 

[Tornado]

Read my other posts in this thread.

I did. Your other post in the thread was inaccurate.

It makes no difference to Sony's bottom line whether one person bought a game and played it for nine months online; or if one person bought the game, played it online for 3 months, sold it, and then a second person bought it and played it online for 6 months.

 

[ivoyared]

I would say a +1, but I'm thinking the reason why Sony is doing this is to prevent hacking.

This is still bullcrap, though.

Hacking? The only reason they are doing this is to 🤬 the used game market and get more money, like EA.

 

[LaBounti]

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.

That's how I see it. This isn't for every game across the board. And it doesn't affect Sony if a non supporter wants to throw fits about it. outraged at a concept. Not that the concept actually affects them for a specific game. If this was retro active, by far the worse move in gaming. But its not so...

Battle Field Bad Company 2 is a fantastic online shooter that has a online pass and non of the 100's of gamers I've played against ever complained about it. The VIP was a brilliant idea for gamers who support EA and we get free content(more like updates).

Hacking? The only reason they are doing this is to 🤬 the used game market and get more money, like EA.

Um, how are they doing this to "make money'? millions of people are not going to flock to secondhand stores just to buy a pass to play that game. They can make money but its not guaranteed that they can make a dime off of it. They are going from 0% chance of used games bringing them money to above zero %...... .don;'t except them to even have a quarterly report on game passes sold......

 

[arora]

Personally I will never buy a game requiring this 'online ticket', new or otherwise. I know it's not realistic to think it will make a bit of difference, but I wish no one else would either(in protest). Nothing but greed, plain and simple.

Unrelated but it reminds me of the state sales tax on used cars, where I live we pay 5% everytime a car is resold. The sales tax can be charged on the same item indefinitely

It takes money to run servers.

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

So we pay for psn after all then

 

[Northstar]

I did. Your other post in the thread was inaccurate.

It makes no difference to Sony's bottom line whether one person bought a game and played it for nine months online; or if one person bought the game, played it online for 3 months, sold it, and then a second person bought it and played it online for 6 months.

Yes, it does, since the server traffic remains the same yet the profits from said game decline.

I'm guessing most people complaining about this also complained that games cost $10 more this generation, that we have to pay for DLC and that developers have pre-order and LE content not available in the normal game yet still pre-order the LE and buy all the DLC.

 

[icelt]

Yes, it does, since the server traffic remains the same yet the profits from said game decline.

I'm guessing most people complaining about this also complained that games cost $10 more this generation, that we have to pay for DLC and that developers have pre-order and LE content not available in the normal game yet still pre-order the LE and buy all the DLC.

It's all a trade off built into the price of admission for the developer and the hardware owner (meaning Sony/MS/Ninty). If they don't want to "cut" into their potential profits they can always choose to remove MP (and all the associated overhead) and still charge the same prices for a SP only experience. Now will those games still sell enough in comparison to the MP enabled games to justify the lost online features? That's the question. So far it seems Sony & MS especially believe they MUST have online enabled games to maintain the financial goals those companies have. In the end it is their choice to play in this market and we the consumer have no obligation to ensure their survival. Up to this point "we pay, we play" has worked pretty damn well. But as usual once one company manages to get some portion of their customers to buy into their greedy schemes and it almost forces others to follow suit to maintain favor with their various investors and partners.

 

[Tornado]

So we pay for psn after all then

If you truly thought this was clever, I feel that the human race is that much closer to complete annihilation by its own hands.

Yes, it does, since the server traffic remains the same yet the profits from said game decline.

Except the profits don't decline. That new sale still went to Sony, and you cannot assume that the used sale might have been a new sale otherwise.

A used game sale is not a theft of a sale from Sony. It is the transfer of ownership from one owner to another, and it makes no difference to Sony's operating costs whether I'm playing the game online or if I lend it to my friend and he plays it online. That copy of the game was still paid for, so the online component of the game is still covered by the original sale regardless of who is using it.

 

[arora]

Yes, it does, since the server traffic remains the same yet the profits from said game decline.

Is this assuming the used game buyer would otherwise buy it new? I don't follow your logic, gotta agree with Toronado on this one.

I'm guessing most people complaining about this also complained that games cost $10 more this generation, that we have to pay for DLC and that developers have pre-order and LE content not available in the normal game yet still pre-order the LE and buy all the DLC.

I'm complaining I guess, so I can respond to that; the 10 dollar increase didn't bother me at all. DLC that is already on the disc bothers me greatly, I don't like dlc in general but it's not a deal braker. Pre-order etc does not bother me at all.

Oh shut up.

Sorry couldn't help it but just in jest.


Oh, you edited, oh well, still just messin ya 👍

 

[ell470]

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

Brand new, online has been working just fine so far! But EA is the king when it comes to shutting down servers early

 

[Northstar]

Except the profits don't decline. That new sale still went to Sony, and you cannot assume that the used sale might have been a new sale otherwise.

Unless something has changed recently developers don't see anything from used game sales.

A used game sale is not a theft of a sale from Sony.

Yes, it is.

It is the transfer of ownership from one owner to another, and it makes no difference to Sony's operating costs whether I'm playing the game online or if I lend it to my friend and he plays it online.

Once again, yes, it does as the traffic stays the same and no more profit is made as games are bought used. Therefor they end up losing money.

That copy of the game was still paid for, so the online component of the game is still covered by the original sale regardless of who is using it.

Yes, the online content is available to the original buyer, not sure why you feel second hand things should have everything new versions have.

Why is it that people feel they are entitled to everything?

@ The part you edited out.

Companies exist to make money, how greedy they are depends on the consumer.

Is this assuming the used game buyer would otherwise buy it new?

Not sure how else they would buy it.

I don't follow your logic, gotta agree with Toronado on this one.

Care to explain why?

I'm complaining I guess, so I can respond to that; the 10 dollar increase didn't bother me at all. DLC that is already on the disc bothers me greatly, I don't like dlc in general but it's not a deal braker. Pre-order etc does not bother me at all.

You are in the minority, most people that complain about these types of things expect a solid gold disc for $5.

 

[arora]

Not sure how else they would buy it.

They might not buy it at all.

Care to explain why?

Sure, I don't believe anyone but myself should profit from a used item I own and sell. I cannot see how you think otherwise.

You are in the minority, most people that complain about these types of things expect a solid gold disc for $5.

Do you have examples of that? Sounds like a huge exaggeration to me, some of us actually want only what we think is fair.

Ultimately the market will dictate how this stuff pans out, if the majority are happy paying for things more then once then so be it.

 

[Northstar]

They might not buy it at all.

Which wouldn't cause load on the server.

Sure, I don't believe anyone but myself should profit from a used item I own and sell. I cannot see how you think otherwise.

What if you supply a service that goes along with that product?

I own my internet modem(bought from my ISP), doesn't mean I get access to the internet for free.

Do you have examples of that? Sounds like a huge exaggeration to me, some of us actually want only what we think is fair.

Would have thought the example was enough to establish exaggeration.

People also have different ideas of what fair is, I think it's fair that a company tries to get some money back from the used game market.

Ultimately the market will dictate how this stuff pans out, if the majority are happy paying for things more then once then so be it.

The fact people are fine paying for XBL makes me think the mass market doesn't put much thought into these things.

I really see no problem with a developer trying to get people to buy new, this really is just the latest gimmick, first was pre-order content, than came the first run editions now the online pass that comes free when the game is new.

 

[arora]

What if you supply a service that goes along with that product?

I own my internet modem(bought from my ISP), doesn't mean I get access to the internet for free.

Of course not, you pay for the service separately, if the modem came with a years free service for instance, what difference would it make who used it for that year?

People also have different ideas of what fair is, I think it's fair that a company tries to get some money back from the used game market.

We will never agree on that, if I sold my used car should the purchaser be required to pay a percentage of the sale price to the manufacturer?

I really see no problem with a developer trying to get people to buy new, this really is just the latest gimmick, first was pre-order content, than came the first run editions now the online pass that comes free when the game is new.

As I already said, I don't disagree with dev's giving incentive for buying new, I disagree with penalties for buying used.

 

[Northstar]

Of course not, you pay for the service separately, if the modem came with a years free service for instance, what difference would it make who used it for that year?

What about once the year is up(aka when someone sells their copy they bought new)?

By having online play they are providing a service(server usage), the game in this case is a modem to access the server. By buying the game new I have access to it as long as I own it, once I sell it the person who buys it has to pay a fee to use the service.

We will never agree on that, if I sold my used car should the purchaser be required to pay a percentage of the sale price to the manufacturer?

Last I checked manufacturers don't provide any service after the sale(don't say warranties as any and every item sold comes with one). Once the car is sold they are basically done with it and any interaction afterwards is between the owner and dealer which is a totally different situation.

That is also a horrible analogy and I wish people would stop making it.

As I already said, I don't disagree with dev's giving incentive for buying new, I disagree with penalties for buying used.

Why though?

I have at least given some things to back my side, thus far all you and Tornado have done is complain that it's unfair.

 

[DustDriver]

What about once the year is up(aka when someone sells their copy they bought new)?

By having online play they are providing a service(server usage), the game in this case is a modem to access the server. By buying the game new I have access to it as long as I own it, once I sell it the person who buys it has to pay a fee to use the service.

Response:

which is a totally different situation.

That is also a horrible analogy and I wish people would stop making it.

In my opinion the server space has been reserved, so to speak, for that copy already when it was bought new. The owner of the game is entitled to use this server space until the servers are shut down.

So when this user sells his copy, the server space required stays the same, only the person playing changes.

 

[Spagetti69]

I thought Sony wanted the online to be free to play?

Do Sony charge the Developers or publishers for us to play online? I don't know.

If Sony do charge the publishers or developers then fair enough, why should they pick up the cost of second hand sales.

If Sony doesn't charge the publisher or developer then I think it's a cheek to add a stealth way of playing online.

I don't even play resistance. Who publishes it?

Edit.

Just read it on Eurogamer.
So it's a Sony title, seems to go against point one if free online gaming IMHO.

You can't really have a bullet point of free online if it's actually not.

Hope to see cross game chat and party invites soon then.

 

[sesselpupser]

I don't get what's so hard to understand about this. Sony spends millions on just one game and every used sale is money they could have had.

Now, I don't doubt that the impact of used games is exaggerated by publishers, the same as how I feel that piracy isn't necessarily as bad as the film, music and videogame industry claim, but the fact is that Sony and EA and all other publishers are out to make as much money as possible, that's how they've made it this far, after all.

I don't believe for a second that the PSN pass contributes to the server costs that a used game player would incur, but that's not the point of it, it's simply to make money, because that's how the economy works; people sell products and services in return for money.

And the used car analogy; have you seen the price of new cars lately? They're extortionate and I refuse to believe a car really costs that much to manufacture. Sony could always bump up the prices of new games to compensate for the money they're losing in the used games market in the same way that car manufacturers do, would you prefer that?

Or how about Activision? Call of Duty 4 currently sells for £20 on Steam. Think about that, a game that's 3-4 years old selling for more than much more recent games and only £10 less than some games cost a month or two after release, signifying that Activision are very, very reluctant to lower the price of their golden cash cow no matter how old it is. The DLC packs for MW2 and Black Ops cost a quarter of the game's original price, but with nowhere near 25% of the content they shipped with, and now they're launching Call of Duty Elite, a subscription service like Xbox Live, but for just one game. Game subscriptions are nothing new, but for what seems to be a social network for a first person shooter? I think we should all hope that EA and Sony don't decide that's a good idea in a year or two.

Then of course there's the point that the PSN is free, they could have decided to start charging to recoup lost profits through used sales.

My point is, Sony will make their money one way or another, I'm just glad they're directly targeting the gamers who are costing them money (through lost sales, not server costs) and not just going after all of us. I've had enough of that with shoddy PC game DRM, like Splinter Cell: Conviction which just won't play if your internet connection is down.

 

[DustDriver]

I don't get what's so hard to understand about this. Sony spends millions on just one game and every used sale is money they could have had.

That is IF the person that bought the used game, has the money to buy the new game instead.

The person buying the new games potentially wouldn't have the money for new games if he didn't sell the games he didn't use.

So without used games, it could very well mean that the amount of new games bought by person 1 + person 2 wouldn't be higher than in the current situation.

And with used games there's the possibility of selling DLC 2 times for one sold copy of the game.

 

[Piotrov]

I for one am going to be buying less games as a result of this. I purchase many new games from the credit that I have acquired from other new games that I traded in because they 1. Sucked, 2. Were short, 3. Had absolutely no replay value. But it gave me a but of extra money to get new games. Now I will end up buying fewer games and not support smaller development studios. Plus I will be very cautious when buying games there for no more day one buys.

 

[Caz]

How will this affect you selling games to buy new games? Ea has been doing this for over a year now and you still see tons of their games on the used shelf.
I have a lot of friends who will wait a couple months for a game to hit the used shelf before buying it to save a few bucks. Some will not buy games new at all. This does directly relate to the money that goes to the developer and directly affects future support for that game and future games.
I fail to see the big bottle of whine his is causing in he gaming community. If you buy games new there is no problem.
Pick up a game on the used section if you are unsure of it. Play some single player, if you like it pony up the 10 or 15 bucks for the online pass for it. You will most likely still end up below the price of a new game.
The way the internet is making this out to be is that all games will require you to buy this to access online features. Totally understandable if we were to pay for online even for new games. But that isnt the case here.

 

[Tornado]

Yes, it is.

Your entire argument seems to hinge on this assumption, which is a problem because it is a colossal leap of logic to make, and without it to lean on your entire argument is factually incorrect. You cannot prove that a used sale is the same as a lost sale, and all attempts to do so by anyone basically amounts to just making things up.

Once again, yes, it does as the traffic stays the same and no more profit is made as games are bought used. Therefor they end up losing money.

Except they don't, and the only way that they would is if they bought a used copy instead of a new copy (which, as I just said, is impossible to even assume to be the case).

That individual copy of the game, when it was bought, is entitled to be played online for as long as the servers are running. This is stone cold fact, because the original owner of the game can do just that without incurring any charges for using the server. The use of the server for that copy of the game was paid for throughout the life of the server when the game was bought new.

Who is playing it online makes no difference whatsoever to the costs, because it is the same copy of the game and those costs have already been covered. That server space is still reserved throughout the life of the server. All this fee is is a spite charge on Sony's part.

Yes, the online content is available to the original buyer, not sure why you feel second hand things should have everything new versions have.

So what is the financial difference on Sony's end if I play the game for 9 months or if I play it for 3 months and someone else plays it for 6?

What about once the year is up(aka when someone sells their copy they bought new)?

By having online play they are providing a service(server usage), the game in this case is a modem to access the server. By buying the game new I have access to it as long as I own it, once I sell it the person who buys it has to pay a fee to use the service.

That's not even remotely the same situation. If you wanted to make this analogy accurate, what you are saying is that the second person should pay the fee to use the modem if they start using it 6 months in even though there are still 6 months of free use left.

I have at least given some things to back my side

You haven't. You've made poor analogies and huge assumptions and said that they prove your point.

 

[alexleighton]

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

+1

A problem with this strategy too is that they're just punishing used game buyers without really giving people a reason to buy new. Infact, they're punishing everyone by making new buyers have to enter a code whenever they pop a new game in..

I tend to think a better solution would be to reward new purchasers with something extra that would add to the longetivity of the game, such as free content every so often. It accomplishes the same thing but doesn't seem as heavy handed as blocking features.

 

[ell470]

Sooner or later we will reach the point where you must have online check to even play the game, good times for when the PSN is down or for those poor people that don't even have their PS3s connected.

I believe & fear that, that is what this online pass thing is paving the way for

 

[HKS racer]

Ok so I'll buy only used games who doesn't have this crap pass, there are still plenty of them. I'll buy new, only the games I'm really interested to, maybe F1 2011, I can't see anything else worth the full price.. so f them

 

[sesselpupser]

That is IF the person that bought the used game, has the money to buy the new game instead.

The person buying the new games potentially wouldn't have the money for new games if he didn't sell the games he didn't use.

So without used games, it could very well mean that the amount of new games bought by person 1 + person 2 wouldn't be higher than in the current situation.

And with used games there's the possibility of selling DLC 2 times for one sold copy of the game.

I agree, but I don't think Sony really care if person 1 buys the game and person 2 doesn't, it's that if person 2 wants to buy it, they can, and not give Sony any money for the privilege. If person 2 doesn't buy the game, it's not a lost sale, but if they buy a used one, it is... If you see what I mean. I mean, when you read anti-piracy articles, they usually talk about lost sales due to piracy, but they don't count everyone who hasn't yet bought their product as a lost sale, only those who have pirated it instead. Not to mention the fact that used game sales don't count towards Sony's sales figures anyway, so even if not a single person who would've bought it used bought it new instead they wouldn't see much difference.

And although not everyone can afford new games, the PSN pass is still better than not buying it at all. In most other industries, if you want to buy something but you can't afford it, you're usually out of luck unless there's a used market. So, say you want Resistance 3 but you haven't got enough to get it new, without a PSN pass code a used game will likely be a lot cheaper than used games are now, so you can play the singleplayer for relatively cheap. Then if you decide you want it, you can get the multiplayer code separately when you've got a bit of spare cash again.

So you know, in a way, this might work to some peoples' advantage, it's not unimaginable that there's a segment of gamers that either don't play online or only play one game (a certain modern combat themed first person shooter, perhaps), or have no interest in playing Resistance 3 online, but they want to play the campaign mode, so the price of used games may be lower than usual.

I mean, if everyone is saying that people will get less for selling their used games, then surely the people that do buy them will get them cheaper, too? Of course, the PSN pass might be absolutely extortionate, which would invalidate what I've said, but if the price of the game itself and the PSN pass add up to the price of the new game and if Sony don't decide to cripple PSN pass games beyond the online mode, then I don't think this will be as bad as everyone's saying, it just means that people who buy used games will have to make a choice as to whether online play bothers them enough to make the purchase of a pass worthwhile.

 

[Piotrov]

One problem I see is that with so many games coming out unfinished and riddled with bugs the people who usually wait to for the game to get fixed before they buy it will end up having to pay more in the end because they chose not to test a unfinished game on day one of release.

 

[Spagetti69]

One problem I see is that with so many games coming out unfinished and riddled with bugs the people who usually wait to for the game to get fixed before they buy it will end up having to pay more in the end because they chose not to test a unfinished game on day one of release.

Not true.

You can buy a unused game later on for a cheaper price.

 

[Villain]

As long as you buy a used copy with a price difference greater than 10 bucks of the price of a new one, you should be fine.

 

[Akira AC]

I'm probably late for this one,but it seems that Sony(as game publisher) also wants to stop the whole used game business,its no surprise that several publishers will start with this practice and in fact(for the publishers)its an effective method to rank up revenue numbers a bit.

Part of the problem is the "used game" consumer,this practice has increased since a couple of years back (hence the fame of gamestop) and has become a real problem for publishers,the reason for this is not the actual purchase of the used game,its the manufacturing costs behind the copy,unlike a pirated game,the used game do not represent any revenue to the publisher,and it does represent and expense(production and shipping),and as it turns out,gamestop and used game sellers do not give a revenue for the used game(obviously).

Then there is the problem of piracy,online passes have been proven as an effective method of stopping unauthorized copies to be play online(similar to CD key on online PC games),and if it becomes more effective,then the "online pass" will be more frequent.

For me,this is no surprise(in fact I fell like that that last segment was unnecessary),however I feel a bit biased by this,because it shows the incompetence of game publishers at the time of facing these issues,the consumer shouldn't have to go through this,the games(physical copy)should be able to be identified as piracy copies by a system,and publishers should also negotiate with used-game game sellers to stop shovelling this to the used game market.

With that said,I think that they should rather follow the Steam model,by using an online platform(In fact EA is starting to do this with Origin,but not quite) in which players can buy the game cheaper without carrying them the costs of physical copy production.