• 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]

slider

Member
Mooreberg said:
I agree with "vote with your wallet" but when it comes to things like this or DLC, it doesn't take a majority of people putting up with it for publishers to go for it. Somebody has been looking at numbers for how EA has done with their online passes, and they like what they see.

Yeah, no doubt - I was a little naive! And even if there is a movement against this assumed initiative it'll take a fair while before it starts pinching "Sony".

Still, I'll wait to see what it actually is before getting too concerned.

EDIT: For the purposes of clarity I've never bought 2nd hand or sold a game.
 
CadetMahoney said:
PSN+ plus what? plus another $10 please.

K thx. bai. . . signed Sony.

jpbp5s.jpg


^Consumers = loser, Sony = winner, Corner men = fanboys who support no matter what.

LOL..
 

Zen

Banned
CadetMahoney said:
PSN+ plus what? plus another $10 please.

K thx. bai. . . signed Sony.

http://i55.tinypic.com/jpbp5s.jpg

^Consumers = loser, Sony = winner, Corner men = fanboys who support no matter what.

It's weird how some people can't understand the idea that someone would want a healthy industry as a whole that find a relatively small middle ground for compensating a relatively small amount of game makers for the 2nd hand sale of there games that they get nothing for, it's all 'me me me me me'. How many studios have gone under lately? This isn't exactly an overall healthy industry.

Fanboyism has nothing to do with it. I support any company finding a reasonable approach to helping them get something for their work.
 

Jin34

Member
TheBranca18 said:
Yes they sell those games back to Gamestop so Gamestop can mark them up 100% and sell them for five dollars less than new games. :)

And they buy points for maps, dlc, or even new games with their credit. Even people that buy used can buy map packs, map packs the previous owner of said game might have already bought even though he's not playing the game anymore, so the publisher got the same map pack bought twice on the same disc! Clearly the dlc should pass to the new owner when he buys it from someone else.
 
KingDizzi said:
EA and Sony are doing this for all their titles now, have MS, Activision, Ubisoft etc started yet?

MS is league beyond everyone on that point, you can't play online if you don't subscribe to Xbox Live. But they have a smarter approach, they make you pay for the whole Xbox Live service instead of making you pay on a game basis. The fact that people are happy to pay to play peer to peer online is beyond me though.
 

larvi

Member
Omiee said:
I like this idea to be honest, never liked the idea of used games etc.
to many publishers losing money on it, and gamestop making money on it.

Yep, god forbid anyone might actually want to sell, trade in, or let another family member or friend play something they've purchased.
 
demosthenes said:
You missed my other post where I went on to say the best method for this.

What if the original buyer pays $60 and plays the game online for a year and then sells it for $20 to person B. Person B then plays the game online for a year as well.

Person B is using a service that he paid nothing to Sony for.

If he stopped playing the game and not sold it, then Sony would require 1 less person to provide service to.

...

You have no idea how wrong you are.

I hope I become Sony's president in the future and bill you $5 for online play every quarter. You won't pay after 3 months? No service for you. Pay up or stay with SP only.
 
Ugh, i can´t believe people are defending these kind of behavior. Seriously (some) gamers are the most complacent consumers on earth. First developers/publishers remove part of their game to sell as a DLC and people defend them. Now DLC became natural part of gaming. Same with paying to play online. And now this. Seriously, don´t people who defend these action understand that this sets up a bad and anti consumer precedent? Next generation of console gaming gonna suck big time.
 

Jin34

Member
Zen said:
It's weird how some people can't understand the idea that someone would want a healthy industry as a whole that find a relatively small middle ground for compensating a relatively small amount of game makers for the 2nd hand sale of there games that they get nothing for, it's all 'me me me me me'. How many studios have gone under lately? This isn't exactly an overall healthy industry.

Fanboyism has nothing to do with it. I support any company finding a reasonable approach to helping them get something for their work.

Treating used games as a huge problem that must be attacked to a degree that no other industry that has a second hand market does is not a small middle ground. This is not a cure to their financial problems, but a symptom of a poor business model.
 

Dash Kappei

Not actually that important
Galvanise_ said:
Online gaming and access to that whole other side of the game. I see value in online gaming.

If I buy a game used, for a fraction of the cost, and not a single penny of that goes to Sony/EA who developed the online side of that game, that is not good for them.

Surely you can see that side to it?
Except that they've already got their fucking money and they still only need to support one persone being online at the time; it's not like they'll have to run the service/bandwith for how many people owned the the disc, simultaneously.

Hopefully you can see where's the logic at.
 

Owzers

Member
Beam said:
Ugh, i can´t believe people are defending these kind of behavior. Seriously (some) gamers are the most complacent consumers on earth. First developers/publishers remove part of their game to sell as a DLC and people defend them. Now DLC became natural part of gaming. Same with paying to play online. And now this. Seriously, don´t people who defend these action understand that this sets up a bad and anti consumer precedent? Next generation of console gaming gonna suck big time.

we'll all be pc gamers by then, kind of like a console gamer rapture.
 

Gravijah

Member
Cool, guess I'll continue not playing shitty multiplayer games. Thanks for screwing us renters. Can't wait for next gens 10 dollar game activation fee when you don't have the bundled CDkey!
 

Karma

Banned
larvi said:
Yep, god forbid anyone might actually want to sell, trade in, or let another family member or friend play something they've purchased.

Having to pay $10 to play any online game that I borrow from a friend is a HUGE deal.
 

Snuggles

erotic butter maelstrom
Beam said:
Ugh, i can´t believe people are defending these kind of behavior. Seriously (some) gamers are the most complacent consumers on earth. First developers/publishers remove part of their game to sell as a DLC and people defend them. Now DLC became natural part of gaming. Same with paying to play online. And now this. Seriously, don´t people who defend these action understand that this sets up a bad and anti consumer precedent? Next generation of console gaming gonna suck big time.

It typically comes from either blind loyalty or a lack of foresight. I feel like we've only seen the tip of the iceberg so far and this kind of practice is likely to become more and more frequent. It's a battle between greedy publishers and the used game market and we're the poor saps caught in the cross fire.
 

Flayer

Member
It doesn't bother me at all as tend to only buy multiplayer games new since that's always the best time to experience multi (on consoles anyways). Used games I buy are usually for the single player - something cheap with a nice experience.
 

JWong

Banned
Gram Negative Cocci said:
...

You have no idea how wrong you are.

I hope I become Sony's president in the future and bill you $5 for online play every quarter. You won't pay after 3 months? No service for you. Pay up or stay with SP only.
If we're paying $60 for the game, then SP only would be $50.

I don't think the used game buyer bought his game for $50. Nor would the publisher and developer see any of that money. They will see a part of that $10.
 

larvi

Member
Karma said:
Having to pay $10 to play any online game that I borrow from a friend is a HUGE deal.

Yep, I agree, I was being sarcastic. People who say they aren't affected by this because they only buy new are wrong. Essentially what they have purchased has less intrinsic value due to this so they are affected. About the only person not affected would be that collector who only buys shrink wrapped games and never plays them.
 

Gravijah

Member
Adam Prime said:
DAMN.


This is evil, but absolutely brilliant.

You know what would be even more brilliant? Having a system wide online fee. That way, you could always be 100% sure people are paying Sony to play online. You can't let people that aren't paying play online!
 

hey_it's_that_dog

benevolent sexism
Snuggler said:
It typically comes from either blind loyalty or a lack of foresight. I feel like we've only seen the tip of the iceberg so far and this kind of practice is likely to become more and more frequent. It's a battle between greedy publishers and the used game market and we're the poor saps caught in the cross fire.

I think some people genuinely believe in a trickle-down model in which making sure the publishers maximize their earnings will directly lead to more and better games to consume. I don't have the knowledge or expertise to judge the validity of this position, but it provides a non-shill explanation which I think is more conducive to discussion.
 

Tron 2.0

Member
If this is Project $10, for some reason I naively thought that first-party publishers wouldn't do it.

I can't imagine Microsoft getting away with it, though, since they already charge for online.

But I was also dumb enough to think that Microsoft really meant $50 for first-party titles.
 

Takao

Banned
Tron 2.0 said:
If this is Project $10, for some reason I naively thought that first-party publishers wouldn't do it.

Sony has been doing it for more than a year at this point.
 

Zen

Banned
Jin34 said:
Treating used games as a huge problem that must be attacked to a degree that no other industry that has a second hand market does is not a small middle ground. This is not a cure to their financial problems, but a symptom of a poor business model.

We're already seeing a realignment adjusting for the business conditions though, mega studios through aquisition, reuse of existing IPs, tons of smaller scale devs popping up that aren't attempting to make the 20+ million dollar game.

But do we like our mega budget games? You bet we do. So we're going to continue to see DLC and other methods to help fund them.

The idea that this is just a symptom, or that used game sales in general, are a symptom of a poor business model is something I disagree with. In virtually any industry the reason that used sales aren't that big of a deal is that the condition of the product is important. With video games no one cares about the physical condition because it is in this day and age mutually exclusive from its functionality.

But in virtually any industry is you had the major retailers saying 'hey buy this, that works just as well as the same new product on the shelf, but we'll sell it to you for X amount cheaper and the guys who made it get nothing', you bet they would sell a lot more of the less expensive ones.

gamestopchart2.jpg
 
Karma said:
Then Microsoft can say you save more money with live. You can buy used, sell games and borrow your friends games no extra charge.

Yes they could! But I doubt either side would actually do that beyond a snide remark here or there.
 

Tron 2.0

Member
Takao said:
Sony has been doing it for more than a year at this point.
Oh really? Huh. Shows how many Sony-published titles I've picked up in the last year.

Do you know of any examples off the top of your head?
 

DrPirate

Banned
General Shank-a-snatch said:
I don't speak on Jin34's behalf, this is how I look at the situation.

- Original Buyer purchases Resistance 3 for full price.
- Original Buyer then gives the game to Second Hand Buyer.
- Original Buyer no longer owns the game and his online activity won't be updated.
- Second Hand Buyer keeps playing Resistance 3 online.
- During this whole process, only one game was printed by Sony. One person owns the game now, not two. Only one person keeps using the server to play online, does it matter if it's the Original Buyer or Second Hand Buyer playing? Sony got their cash for one person playing one game online. It's not like server stress got multiplied with only game, the activity is still the same.




Oops. Well, sorry for wasting your time. :)


That needs to be quoted a million times in this thread...

It can't be said enough...



I'll do it one more time:

- Original Buyer purchases Resistance 3 for full price.
- Original Buyer then gives the game to Second Hand Buyer.
- Original Buyer no longer owns the game and his online activity won't be updated.
- Second Hand Buyer keeps playing Resistance 3 online.
- During this whole process, only one game was printed by Sony. One person owns the game now, not two. Only one person keeps using the server to play online, does it matter if it's the Original Buyer or Second Hand Buyer playing? Sony got their cash for one person playing one game online. It's not like server stress got multiplied with only game, the activity is still the same.



- Original Buyer purchases Resistance 3 for full price.
- Original Buyer then gives the game to Second Hand Buyer.
- Original Buyer no longer owns the game and his online activity won't be updated.
- Second Hand Buyer keeps playing Resistance 3 online.
- During this whole process, only one game was printed by Sony. One person owns the game now, not two. Only one person keeps using the server to play online, does it matter if it's the Original Buyer or Second Hand Buyer playing? Sony got their cash for one person playing one game online. It's not like server stress got multiplied with only game, the activity is still the same.

 

Dynedom

Member
notworksafe said:
That's how it works for car makers. Ford,Honda, and a few others do it and call the cars "Certified Pre-Owned".

Agreed. If I had some way of guaranteeing that publishers got my money when I bought used, I'd have no problem buying used. As it stands, I avoid it completely (SP or MP).

I have to agree on how this affects renting/lending though (something I didn't really think about, initially). Considering how garbage some online gaming is, I don't really blame people for renting/borrowing first (hell I do it for SP games before I buy). If they gave you like a trial run of the multiplayer BEFORE you have to buy the online pass (1 week or so?), I think the system would be much better. Like, I would have loved to try Black Ops' PS3 online before "paying" for it (I bought the game new. Big mistake). As it stands, you're paying with the possibility of playing MP with shitty net code, unbalanced crap, etc (whether you buy used or not).

I know some people who bought Brink wished they had rented it first (they hated the online, which is the only damn reason to buy the game in the first place). I like supporting publishers but I sure as hell would not want to support bad/incompetent ones either.
 
I pretty much understand the approach. When a game is sold new, a publisher gets a portion of the profit to keep the online service running. Running servers and maintaining a network for a game isn't free. If someone decides to buy a game used, the publisher doesn't see any of the money to keep their servers running. There could be many buying used copies using the servers, which are no longer receiving any funding. That's how I see it, instead of just shutting off the online after a period of time.
 
hey_it's_that_dog said:
I think some people genuinely believe in a trickle-down model in which making sure the publishers maximize their earnings will directly lead to more and better games to consume. I don't have the knowledge or expertise to judge the validity of this position, but it provides a non-shill explanation which I think is more conducive to discussion.

The thing is, companies will keep making excuses over and over again to maximize their earnings until the middle-ground reaches our neck. Also, if they made better games then most gamers wouldn't sell them, unless some are in deep financial troubles.

Just because they get more money isn't a guarantee that the quality will stay good or become better. Technology can become even more expensive for the next gen and the game prices would rise too, imagine all the ways devs could squeeze out money with online passes, nonsense DRM, day 1 paid DLC etc.

This and all the other against-arguments in this thread is something that the people who you are referring to should think about for a moment.
 
JWong said:
Nor would the publisher and developer see any of that money.
Every used or borrowed copy was once a new copy that was paid for. The publishers already got their fair share. They aren't entitled to anything more than that.

BoilersFan23 said:
I pretty much understand the approach. When a game is sold new, a publisher gets a portion of the profit to keep the online service running. Running servers and maintaining a network for a game isn't free. If someone decides to buy a game used, the publisher doesn't see any of the money to keep their servers running. There could be many buying used copies using the servers, which are no longer receiving any funding. That's how I see it, instead of just shutting off the online after a period of time.
Again, they already got paid from the initial purchase. All used games were once new games. That revenue went to paying for the multiplayer service.

And again, if a new game gets resold or borrowed as a used copy 10 times, that's still only one person at a time that the multiplayer infrastructure has to support. Reselling the game doesn't add one iota of burden to online play.
 

alr1ght

bish gets all the credit :)
BoilersFan23 said:
I pretty much understand the approach. When a game is sold new, a publisher gets a portion of the profit to keep the online service running. Running servers and maintaining a network for a game isn't free. If someone decides to buy a game used, the publisher doesn't see any of the money to keep their servers running. There could be many buying used copies using the servers, which are no longer receiving any funding. That's how I see it, instead of just shutting off the online after a period of time.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=29086110&postcount=231
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=29086110&postcount=231
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=29086110&postcount=231
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=29086110&postcount=231
 
BoilersFan23 said:
I pretty much understand the approach. When a game is sold new, a publisher gets a portion of the profit to keep the online service running. Running servers and maintaining a network for a game isn't free. If someone decides to buy a game used, the publisher doesn't see any of the money to keep their servers running. There could be many buying used copies using the servers, which are no longer receiving any funding. That's how I see it, instead of just shutting off the online after a period of time.
Do you think publishers should give partial refunds to people who stop playing their game after a week?
 

SoulClap

Member
I wonder if the devs get a cut of this money or if all of it goes to the publisher. If it is going to the dev. team I don't mind as much seeing as how studios are going under every other day. I'm pretty biased though because I don't buy used games or rent them and I don't think Sony teams are in any danger.
 

CozMick

Banned
Microsoft have been doing this shit for years. It was only a matter of time before other companies jumped on the band wagon in a similar sort of way but then again it doesn't affect me because I would never buy used.
 

notworksafe

Member
Tron 2.0 said:
Oh really? Huh. Shows how many Sony-published titles I've picked up in the last year.

Do you know of any examples off the top of your head?
They did this with Socom PSP. That's the only one I know of, but there may be more.
 
Gram Negative Cocci said:
...

You have no idea how wrong you are.

I hope I become Sony's president in the future and bill you $5 for online play every quarter. You won't pay after 3 months? No service for you. Pay up or stay with SP only.

I don't know how you got this from my post.
 

Takao

Banned
Tron 2.0 said:
Oh really? Huh. Shows how many Sony-published titles I've picked up in the last year.

Do you know of any examples off the top of your head?

The first one I encountered was Socom Fireteam Bravo 3, which was released in February of last year. The latest one I encountered was Patapon 3, which was released just prior to PSN downtime. I know this is now the case with all of Sony's PSP efforts with infrastructure (online) play. I don't buy a tonne of PS3 games, but I do know some of their PS3 games also suffer from DLC codes.
 

alr1ght

bish gets all the credit :)
CozMick said:
it doesn't affect me because I would never buy used.

Don't ever sell games once you're done with them?
Don't ever lend games to friends/family?
Don't have other gamers in the house?

If you do, yes you're affected.
 

CozMick

Banned
Coen said:
Isn't it kind of weird for Sony to promote this on the box? It's not exactly a feature, is it?

Actually you do have a very good point. Free R3 dlc for every new copy, fuck all for used, simple as that.

alr1ghtstart said:
Don't ever sell games once you're done with them?
Don't ever lend games to friends/family?
Don't have other gamers in the house?

If you do, yes you're affected.

Yeah I trade shit in, but that's the used buyers problem tbh.
I wouldn't let a guy touch the damn blu-ray never mind put it into his console.
We have a 360 for the kids :p

I have some sort of ocd type shit going on where game discs are involved, shit has to be factory sealed and in it's spindle before I even consider putting it into my drive :/
 

Tron 2.0

Member
notworksafe said:
They did this with Socom PSP. That's the only one I know of, but there may be more.

Takao said:
The first one I encountered was Socom Fireteam Bravo 3, which was released in February of last year. The latest one I encountered was Patapon 3, which was released just prior to PSN downtime. I know this is now the case with all of Sony's PSP efforts with infrastructure (online) play. I don't buy a tonne of PS3 games, but I do know some of their PS3 games also suffer from DLC codes.
Interesting. Thanks.
 

goldenpp72

Member
Deadly Joker said:
Fuck online passes. They are ruining this industry for me since I mostly rent games.

In their mind, you're ruining the industry by not investing money into your hobby they pay millions to bring to existence, so fair game don't you think?

I'm not anti consumer or anything, but really, if you're not giving any money to a creator of your industry I can kind of see why they don't give a fuck about you, the only thing that annoys me about it is having to put in a fucking code for every game I buy legitimately new.
 
alr1ghtstart said:

Someone tried to pass off this idea to me in a different wording and this is much better way of doing it. I can get behind this post. Consider me almost swayed. At the end of the day though, someone who isn't paying Sony anything is still using the servers.
 

DrPirate

Banned
General Shank-a-snatch said:
Thank you and DrPirate for the support. Bedtime now for me. Please keep it civil, everyone. :)

You don't need to thank anyone. It is the only right answer.

The only thing one can say is: The game was paid for once, but 2 people got to experience it.

In which case, all you would get from me is a very very very blank stare.
 
Top Bottom