-
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.
Confirmed: Sony Announces PSN Pass, Online Access Pass For 1st Party Titles [Updated]
- Thread starter NateDrake
- Start date
MuddyDonut
Member
So many things wrong with thisDeadly Joker said:
StealthGoblin
Banned
alr1ghtstart said:
Not from the tens/hundreds of people who'd rent that disc over and over again, or buy/sell/buy/sell it again and again and again.
corporate cheerleader
Member
snap0212 said:
Ouch.
Stumpokapow said:
Perhaps he understands why Sony is doing it. It makes logical sense even though it hurts the consumer.
Honestly I hardly play any games online, I'm terrible at single player games and don't need the ego downer. But I can see where this hurts services like Goozex as well.
googleplex
Member
Then stop being a cheap skate and buy your games and support developers and publishers.Deadly Joker said:
Noisepurge
Member
snap0212 said:
You sure not a penny of those 10 dollar passes bought from PSN and XBLA go to devs? Or the incentive to actually buy the game full priced instead of going for that 5$ cheaper used copy from Gamestop?
I should have gone on a little with my "why not". Pubs need to provide "new game purchase" incentive to get more sales. I'm fine with them doing whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect the quality of a new game purchase. By purchasing a game used I don't feel I have any reason to complain about a lack of features that a used game may have compared to the new game version.
Hollywood Duo said:
i just signed up a couple months ago...it will be fun while it lasts. It's also fun talking about console game "value" with passes/rentals/used games during a steam Sale where i stock up on a backlog full of 75% off titles.
If online passes were used to justify dropping the price of games down to 39.99-49.99 day one, then i can see a logical argument for it. But defending the worst parts of trending towards digital distribution with none of the benefits just seems really, really, really stupid.
alr1ghtstart said:
They're providing an after-sale service for another user, though. It's not about the disc, it's about the post-sale services. The more times a game gets passed around, the more expensive it is to provide online services vs a single person buying and holding onto a game (on average).
They're providing you a service at a certain level of cost and they weren't party to your purchase of the game at all. So they want to reintroduce themselves to the relationship with this thing, make some money off you, ostensibly in exchange for lifetime online services for that game. If you don't want online - just the game on the disc that indeed isn't costing them more - then you don't have to pay anything more.
demosthenes
Member
Gram Negative Cocci said:
Care to explain what's wrong w/ this?
When you buy a book used, you get just that, a book. You can read it to yourself.
When you buy a used game that has an online functionality like multiplayer you are still using their service. The $60 MSRP has built into it some degree of paying for that continuing service especially in PS3 games as the service is free, the cost of that service is hidden in the $60. Why do you think you should get to play a game for free using their servers when you have given them no money?
Phoenixazure
Member
If it is what we think it is, then I'm not surprised. Servers don't grow on trees.
StealthGoblin
Banned
demosthenes said:
Gamers entitlement.
Brought up in as many threads as there are gamers who fund new purchases, by trading in old ones. Gamestop is just the one major outlet. Ebay, Amazon, Goozex, Even Gaf's Buy and Sell. I've picked up cash to purchase new games.alr1ghtstart said:
It basically comes down to exactly what Stumps said. There is no benefit to this if your a consumer. It's just more DRM, more costs, and hurting resale value.
My head hurts. =[Marius_ said:
Noisepurge
Member
Averon said:
no one knows!
but i'm guessing it's for first party titles only.demosthenes
Member
TheBranca18 said:
demosthenes
Member
Galvanise_ said:
That's my assumed answer, I wanted to see what those arguing against it would say
Live Free or Die
Banned
they're just renaming PS+
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Angry Fork said:
On the one hand, I agree that supporting developers is important. On the other hand, developers and publishers and are already acting in their own best interest, so for consumers to also prioritize corporate interests over their own will quickly lead to a terrible situation for consumers. Free market economics is adversarial and the balance will quickly go out of whack if too many consumers act against their own best interest.
You could argue that by supporting developers you are acting in your own future best interest because then they can make more games of the type you like, but without a lot of data it's hard to know whether that economic strategy outperforms the other.
Library binding and maintenance probably gets you there.Danielsan said:
Shalashaska161
Member
Wait, there are people in this thread arguing that renting videogames is wrong? Whose side are you guys on?
demosthenes
Member
Guevara said:
You're using their service by playing the online portion of the game. You're connecting to their servers. You didn't pay them anything buying it used.
Shalashaska161 said:
I have no problem w/ renting. If Sony fully embraces this though, then they need to develop some system that lets rented games still play online though.
ConradCervantes said:
They will be when buyers start getting so inconvenienced they will buy less games. What these suits at these companies need to realize is that used sales actually helps spur the sale of NEW games. If I can sell that game I bought and beat for $30, then I'm a lot more likely to go buy a new $60 game by having to come out of pocket only $30 as opposed to $60.
Oni Link 666
Member
Why would they put a sticker about having to pay extra fees to play online if you buy a game used on the box of a console like it's some kind of cool feature? I don't think this is what you guys think it is.
I think we can all agree that these seem to be almost panic measures by these companies because of dwindling revenues. Whether that be because of exchange rates, the current worldwide economy crisis or what have you, they seem to be stop-gaps. There are major things that need to be thought out across all video game companies. Things like why are all console games either 50 or 60 bucks with RARE exceptions? The difference in quality is staggering between releases and yet we have games like Haze charging the same amount as Halo or Grand Theft Auto. It makes no fucking sense. At all.
There are publishers/developers with a presence on GAF. I can understand why they'd be against the practice. I've rented in the past and through Goozex every now and then. I do feel guilty about it though. If you want the games you love to play to continue to be fiscally viable then renting games is probably not the way to go. If you don't care and would rather just play and beat the games and move on to the next one then yeah it's fine.
Shalashaska161 said:
There are publishers/developers with a presence on GAF. I can understand why they'd be against the practice. I've rented in the past and through Goozex every now and then. I do feel guilty about it though. If you want the games you love to play to continue to be fiscally viable then renting games is probably not the way to go. If you don't care and would rather just play and beat the games and move on to the next one then yeah it's fine.
Lord_Byron28
Member
Personally, I don't see much of a problem in these $10 online passes only if they allow for a free week trial for rental players and some people would like to know what they are getting into before paying $10 for a feature they might not want . Other than that I don't see a problem with publishers wanting some money from games that are being sold second hand where they don't get any money from it. I find it the better solution than permanent saves and other BS I've seen publishers try and do to prevent the 2nd hand market. Even with the $10 pass you're still likely paying less than buying it new. I don't mind as much because I don't play that many online games though so I guess it sucks more for others.
JMO and I'm one of the people that are pretty pissed off at publishers/developers dishonesty and grimy tactics this gen to make a quick buck.
JMO and I'm one of the people that are pretty pissed off at publishers/developers dishonesty and grimy tactics this gen to make a quick buck.
iNvidious01 said:
The used music and movies don't have their primary retail chain pestering people to trade them in within seven days. I don't think limiting the capabilities of what a rental copy can do is very smart since it means people will probably be less likely to buy your game, but this is pretty much an anti-GameStop (and international equivalents) measure. Consumers get stuck in the middle while not saving a whole lot on the used copies to begin with.
alr1ghtstart said:
New games can be purchased elsewhere. It is the preorders that publishers seem to have a hard on for that keep them in bed with GameStop.
GekigangerV
Member
demosthenes said:
The person who bought the game new payed for the maintenance. If a game sells X million NEW copies that is how many copies can potentially circulate within systems and thus online. When someone buys used there isn't magically X million + 1 games out there.
*edit* Piracy not withstanding of course.
Guevara said:
That's true, undoubtedly.
I mean they are really just trying to disincentivise used game sales.
But it is also true that there is an ongoing cost associated with online services, and if a pub wants to provide that for free to new purchasers only, I can understand that. I can understand why they'd feel particularly peeved about providing services to people they've generated zero revenue on.