Dummy covers for White Knight Chronicles 2 on the PS3 have revealed something very interesting: To play the online mode in the game, players will have to activate a Geonet License on PSN. Each new copy of the game includes a single license code, and it is tied to a single PSN account. For gamers buying used copies, or those who want to use the online mode on more than one PSN account, they will have to purchase additional Geonet Licenses over PSN.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Sony is inspired by EA - White Knight Chronicles 2 requires license for online play
- Thread starter duckroll
- Start date
spiderman123
Member
Suzzopher said:
Fo shizzle, guess they want to get their money worth.
gundamkyoukai
Member
It's only a matter of time before everyone does this. I buy my games new but this sucks for people that buy used game or people that borrow from friends.
Still people that buy used don't really mean much to the publishers so they don't care.
Still people that buy used don't really mean much to the publishers so they don't care.
NemesisPrime
Banned
Everybody will be doing that by next year.
Pity for the used game market and a bit unfair IMHO since other products do not do this. It is a bit against the definition of "second hand".
Pity for the used game market and a bit unfair IMHO since other products do not do this. It is a bit against the definition of "second hand".
Rahxephon91
Banned
Hmm and here I thought the used market crackdown was only in the US. I bet Square wishes it had done something for FFXIII.
Anyway, if this is done in the US it won't bother me. I really doubt I'll be getting the 2nd first hand or anywhere near release, but its the SP that only interests me.
And my feeling with buying second hand stuff is, you should know you may not get everything in perfect shape. So while this sucks this is just a part of buying games second hand now.
Anyway, if this is done in the US it won't bother me. I really doubt I'll be getting the 2nd first hand or anywhere near release, but its the SP that only interests me.
And my feeling with buying second hand stuff is, you should know you may not get everything in perfect shape. So while this sucks this is just a part of buying games second hand now.
lightless_shado
Banned
welp that confirms it for me, after this gen I'm done with gaming. Things will only get worse with time as production costs increase and publishers demand more money.
Sucks for people who buy the game used, but if I know I'll be playing the game online I'll just have to start buying the game new (or waiting for the price to drop so I'd be buying the game new for under $40 which seems to happen for most games this gen).
But this won't be too big of a deal since GAF already said they weren't going to buy this game in the first place since you have to have a completed save file from WKC1 to skip the WKC1 content :lol
But this won't be too big of a deal since GAF already said they weren't going to buy this game in the first place since you have to have a completed save file from WKC1 to skip the WKC1 content :lol
spiderman123
Member
lightless_shado said:
cough actvision....cough but to be serious it happened already in canada remember the days when games cost $59.99
That's really sad and I don't get why this thefts are legally approved.
2nd hand market is legit and when I buy something used I expect it to be functional in every aspect. This way the sale is hindered by the developer itself putting limits on purpose to cut 2nd hand sales in unfair means. While I can see the thing differently from an EA perspective (PC gaming, piracy ecc...) I really don't get it on a console like PS3, which is far from being pirated nowadays.
It's just a way to try more cash-in with licenses fees, but I think the only thing they'll accomplish will be less people experiencing the game (or maybe only the online part of it).
Of all the developers I thought that Level 5 would have been the last one to attempt such a thing, but I was obviously wrong.
2nd hand market is legit and when I buy something used I expect it to be functional in every aspect. This way the sale is hindered by the developer itself putting limits on purpose to cut 2nd hand sales in unfair means. While I can see the thing differently from an EA perspective (PC gaming, piracy ecc...) I really don't get it on a console like PS3, which is far from being pirated nowadays.
It's just a way to try more cash-in with licenses fees, but I think the only thing they'll accomplish will be less people experiencing the game (or maybe only the online part of it).
Of all the developers I thought that Level 5 would have been the last one to attempt such a thing, but I was obviously wrong.
Vinterbird
Member
lightless_shado said:
There's nothing wrong with this at all. You will get a license if you buy the game new, and if you don't you get to pay. It's only fair for developers and publishers.
Slightly Live
Dirty tag dodger
Not liking this trend one bit.
AAK said:
Only one user gets the license, so you'll have to buy extra licenses if the copy is being shared.
Game loses value for a possible resell the moment the license is activated.
Requires spending the time to activate it, which is a nuisance.
And the only thing this trend is effectively doing is lowering the price of used games. Congratulations publishers, you just made used games more attractive for people who aren't playing your game online.
Well, you get the license when you buy it new but what if you want to lend it to a friend or trade it? They won't be able to have the full game experience unless they cough up some cash.
I can understand why they are doing this. They need the money to cover development cost otherwise they wouldn't have to resort to such policy. They are also doing it because they can. Video game companies are not charities, they are a business.
I can understand why they are doing this. They need the money to cover development cost otherwise they wouldn't have to resort to such policy. They are also doing it because they can. Video game companies are not charities, they are a business.
NEOPARADIGM
Banned
Just popping in to say, if this is the future of online gaming, y'all can keep that shit. Online gaming is overrated to begin with. Give me quality AI (i.e., stop cutting corners w/ AI because "online is where it's at") and I'll never play online again anyway.
Rahxephon91
Banned
The thing is ounce this becomes the norm, I'm not sure whats stopping publishers from going the next step and putting limits on non online things.NEOPARADIGM said:
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
I don't think there's anything wrong with this, I really don't. If the publishers want to make as much money as possible without punishing the people who just buy the game I can't hardly fault them. I know the used market is huge but I think that's mostly because the publishers dropped the ball with pricing and they're trying patheticly to pick it up again.
NEOPARADIGM said:
I don't know, I think online is essential or at least enhances the value like tenfold for some games. Monster Hunter Tri is one game where online makes the game what it is. I can imagine Smash being played a lot more even today if it had robust online features.
However I do think developers should put more focus on the main game even if it is at the cost of online.
brain_stew
Member
Nirolak said:
There's a few of those "online pass" vouchers on the PSN, Modnation Racers is at least one other game that has one.
chicken_ramen
Member
Anyone who thought this wasn't going to become standard was deluding themselves. PC gaming has had single user keys for over a decade, this is the logical way to start bringing it into the console space.
It just makes sense from a publisher standpoint, and it hurts nobody. Second hand buyers can buy the code if they want, and the used game prices will be driven down accordingly. The market will sort it all out.
Not a big deal in this instance specifically or as an overall trend.
It just makes sense from a publisher standpoint, and it hurts nobody. Second hand buyers can buy the code if they want, and the used game prices will be driven down accordingly. The market will sort it all out.
Not a big deal in this instance specifically or as an overall trend.
Zeouterlimits
Member
I loathe the current used game system but don't like this either. Wonderful.
DiscoJer
Member
brain_stew said:
It's understandable on the PSP, as a way to fight piracy and it actually started with a Sega game, Phantasy Star Portable 2. Which got downloaded something like 5 million times, only bought 600,000 times Imagine what the servers would be like if they didn't have it?
But on the PS3, that's no longer an excuse.
spiderman123
Member
Dresden said:
EDIT: beaten....thinking this exact same thing
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
Dresden said:
I can see certain games making a healthy profit with a free-download monthly-subscription based revenue. With having to buy a key or boxed version to get access to the single-player.
Mistwalker
Member
Good call, this will probably be me (if I even bother to buy part 2 at this point).ZealousD said:
Wanted to see the story continue, but damn Level 5...WKC1 online was grindier than any MMORPG I've ever seen. Pick the most efficient quest for your Guild Rank, rush it to completion literally hundreds of times to reach the next Guild Rank, then repeat. And repeat. And repeat.
Still, will throw a wrench into the works for used game shops, needing to differentiate "License Used" and "License Available" copies.
The trick is that they eventually extend this to making the entire game playable.ZealousD said:
That or they can greatly divert resources to make the multiplayer the main focus and the singleplayer an extra, kind of like Modern Warfare 2 and Bad Company 2 effectively ended up being.
Edit:
Or they could be really crafty and essentially do the reverse. For singleplayer heavy games, they could allow the multiplayer to be played in used copies, but require an unlock for the singleplayer. This way, they're technically selling a playable game, but the main draw still requires an unlocks.
Callibretto
Member
what? and what happen when my console break, or when I'm upgrading from old ps3 to slim. I hate it that some of my singstar songs I bought cannot be re-downloaded because I upgrade to slim. tying anything to a hardware is just annoying imo.Mojojo said:
This will just kill the online community in these games. Once the game stops selling new, natural rates of attrition will see server use dwindle. With a required entry cost for used buyers, and no free trial to see if its worth it, online games that arent whatever the weekly FPS fad is will die in the arse after a month or two.
Captain_Spanky
Member
So what if I buy a copy and my spouse wants to play online on her PSN account? This is stupid. And as for hurting the second hand market...I'm not sure how much they'll be able to do in the UK, I believe there's some sort of law about the right of consumers to resell products.
BoilersFan23
Member
ModNation Racers is the same way too on PSP.Nirolak said:
I have a feeling those who play the game online are more likely to buy it new. Those who will probably trade it in and buy used (to beat it shortly) are probably those that will buy for single player only.
AranhaHunter
Banned
DiscoJer said:
Used games. I see no problem with this actually, as long as the Online code is tied to my account and up to 5 consoles and yada yada yada like the DLC and PSN games DRM.
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
JWong said:
Steam is shit. My cousin who only has free dialup internet provided by the school where he works blocks Steam. He purchased Half Life 2 for the PC (which does NOT mention anywhere on the box that you need the internet to play the game offline) only to realize that he can't play the game at all. No single player, nothing.
Stupid idea is stupid idea.
It's like ordering a meal at a restaurant but, being forced to pay extra to take the leftovers home or share some french fries with the wife.
It's like if I buy a movie and my friends want to watch it with me I need to charge them a viewing fee.
Goldrusher
Member
Fixed.Nirolak said:
Castor Krieg
Banned
Vinterbird said:
JWong said:
You would think that the good publisher/developer would try to simply make a game that justifies its $60 price tag, as well as prevent its re-sale with stream of incoming DLC, instead of going the easy route and artificially blocking parts of the game for people who cannot justify spending $60 on a game.
This will only result in more people holding off with buying a game for 1-2 months, when the price will go down 5-10$. But then you will have developers moaning their games don't sell.