Support NeoGAF

[hey_it's_that_dog]

I haven't rented or bought a used game in years. This will just cause me to buy less.

If you buy new, why would this cause you to buy less? Because you are taking a principled stand against the practice? You can't take a voluntary principled stand and then complain about what it costs you. That's my initial intuition, anyway.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Let's just review the conversation here:

1) Gram Negative Cocci: "I don't like this"
2) Exuro: "Why not?"
3) Me: "Because it does not benefit us and it could cost us money"
4) You: "Yes but it benefits Sony"
5) Me: "Okay, but I'm not Sony"
6) You: "Yes but it benefits Sony"

...

Understanding why a company is doing something shitty isn't the same as aggreeing with them doing it.

 

[demosthenes]

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.

The most ideal system would be to have the original owner transfer their online pass to the new owner but that system would be a cluster-f* and confusing.

With that said, there aren't. But you're still using a service you paid nothing for.

 

[gofreak]

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.

But the average service cost per game is going to be higher due to 'recirculation' of games.

Except in some cases.

For example, if I buy a game, and I play it online for a month after, that'll cost the pub a certain amount of money. If I take the game out of my machine and put it on the shelf, it won't cost the publisher another cent. But if I resell it, it'll find a new owner, and another additional month (let's say) of online play (and cost).

Not every game is like this, but on average I think it can be argued the cost of online services is pushed higher by that.

 

[googleplex]

Books don't retail at $60.

And books don't have an online component that a platform holder has to support at thier cost.

This entire thread has me shaking my head.

 

[SykoTech]

Probably won't affect me much. I only buy used games when they're really cheap and there are no new copies available. No real point buying an online game at that point because the community will most likely be dried up by then.

Still sucks regardless. Especially for those who rent games or use GameFly.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Understanding why a company is doing something shitty isn't the same as aggreeing with them doing it.

When someone says "I don't like this", which of the following do you think they mean:

1) "I don't like this"

2) "I have no idea why they're doing this. Isn't this illegal? I'm probably going to sue. They're literally crazy and suicidal to do this. The whole company is going to go bankrupt tomorrow! This is going to cost them a billion dollars every day they do this. I'm going to personally get elected US President and declare War on the company and repeal the geneva conventions so I can do nasty things to the executives who will be my POWs!!!! Also anyone who does understand what's going on here is complicit and they'll be first up against the wall!"

There's only so many times I can remind posters of what actually happened in the thread that they're reading before I give up. The original poster expressed that he didn't like this practice. The replyer said "Why not?". I explained why not. How on earth the conversation progressed beyond that is beyond me.

Everyone--and I mean literally everyone, you could pick a random person off the street who has never heard of Sony or video games and who doesn't speak English and tell them "A company is imposing a $10 charge one one of their products why do you think they're doing this?" and they would answer "Oui, je comprends! Ils voulent faire plus d'argent! Parlez-vous Français?!?!?!"--understands why Sony is doing this. That's not what the conversation was about.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

The project 10 bucks or whatever whoever calls it is a stupid practice, but it wont stop me from buying anything. Guess I can't remember the last game I bought used and actively played online. I prefer this over some stupid save file bullshit capcom tried to pull.

 

[Mooreberg]

And if they had they wouldn't tell us "Go to the store we hate so much and buy there to make sure you get at least 90% of the game's content. You'll have to pre-order and buy at multiple places to get the full 100%, of course."

Agreed. Publishers are creating some of their own problems. There is a lot of talk about the financial side of things for developers and publishers in regards to the cost of making games. But have they considered the cost of buying games might be driving people to scramble for a $5 discount at every turn? I personally just wait until a new copy is at a price I am happy with considering the content of the game, but for these people that buy every big new release every month, GameStop has them hooked on the trade in and slight discount cycle.

I'd say go for variable pricing and something like "CD Keys" but if the number of people who don't even know how to hook up a console to the internet are even close to what gets mentioned on here from time to time, the industry is stuck with GameStop's schemes for some time to come.

 

[Jin34]

Let's just review the conversation here:

1) Gram Negative Cocci: "I don't like this"
2) Exuro: "Why not?"
3) Me: "Because it does not benefit us and it could cost us money"
4) You: "Yes but it benefits Sony"
5) Me: "Okay, but I'm not Sony"
6) You: "Yes but it benefits Sony"

...

This is the thing I hate most about gaf, all the damn shills and since so many here work in the industry its hard to tell who's posting propaganda and who isn't. It would be great if people that worked had tags so I could dismiss their posts on stuff like this more easily. Funny thing is this whole war on used games is so goddamned stupid by how short sighted it is, do they not realize that the hordes who trade in games at gamestop do it so they can buy new games, points cards, accessories basically to buy more of their products. All this crap does is make it harder for kids, poorer people and the like to be your costumers.

 

[demosthenes]

This is the thing I hate most about gaf, all the damn shills and since so many here work in the industry its hard to tell who's posting propaganda and who isn't. It would be great if people that worked had tags so I could dismiss their posts on stuff like this more easily. Funny thing is this whole war on used games is so goddamned stupid by how short sighted it is, do they not realize that the hordes who trade in games at gamestop do it so they can buy new games, points cards, accessories basically to buy more of their products. All this crap does is make it harder for kids, poorer people and the like to be your costumers.

Public accountant here, just so you're not confused.

So you have no problem w/ a used game purchase using Sony servers (for possibly months and months) even though they paid no money to Sony?

 

[rainking187]

Attention Publishers: This is how you add value to your product, not remove it:

You know most of that stuff is just going to be download codes in the US, right?

 

[demosthenes]

You know most of that stuff is just going to be download codes in the US, right?

Only the guide book is last time I checked.

 

[bigtroyjon]

But the average service cost per game is going to be higher due to 'recirculation' of games.

Except in some cases.

For example, if I buy a game, and I play it online for a month after, that'll cost the pub a certain amount of money. If I take the game out of my machine and put it on the shelf, it won't cost the publisher another cent. But if I resell it, it'll find a new owner, and another additional month (let's say) of online play (and cost).

Not every game is like this, but on average I think it can be argued the cost of online services is pushed higher by that.

I guess with that logic companies should just make their games as short and shitty as possible so nobody bothers to play them more than once or twice. Think of all the money they will save!

 

[JaggedSac]

When someone says "I don't like this", which of the following do you think they mean:

1) "I don't like this"

2) "I have no idea why they're doing this. Isn't this illegal? I'm probably going to sue. They're literally crazy and suicidal to do this. The whole company is going to go bankrupt tomorrow! This is going to cost them a billion dollars every day they do this. I'm going to personally get elected US President and declare War on the company and repeal the geneva conventions so I can do nasty things to the executives who will be my POWs!!!! Also anyone who does understand what's going on here is complicit and they'll be first up against the wall!"

There's only so many times I can remind posters of what actually happened in the thread that they're reading before I give up. The original poster expressed that he didn't like this practice. The replyer said "Why not?". I explained why not. How on earth the conversation progressed beyond that is beyond me.

Everyone--and I mean literally everyone, you could pick a random person off the street who has never heard of Sony or video games and who doesn't speak English and tell them "A company is imposing a $10 charge one one of their products why do you think they're doing this?" and they would answer "Oui, je comprends! Ils voulent faire plus d'argent! Parlez-vous Français?!?!?!"--understands why Sony is doing this. That's not what the conversation was about.

To be fair, the dude first replied to Gram's statement of "Why Sony? Don't go down this path!" with an explanation of why he thought Sony did it.

EDIT: That train of conversation can basically be summed up with this though:

Sony - Possibly good.
Consumers - Definitely bad.

 

[alr1ght]

let's play a game:

Here's my amazon seller account orders for the past few months:

and here's my new orders for my new ps3 games I've ordered from them:

Holy shit, used games help sell new ones. But I thought I should like getting punished by the pubs?

 

[Karma]

If it is a online pass will screw anyone that wants to rent, sell or borrow games.

 

[googleplex]

This is the thing I hate most about gaf, all the damn shills and since so many here work in the industry its hard to tell who's posting propaganda and who isn't. It would be great if people that worked had tags so I could dismiss their posts on stuff like this more easily. Funny thing is this whole war on used games is so goddamned stupid by how short sighted it is, do they not realize that the hordes who trade in games at gamestop do it so they can buy new games, points cards, accessories basically to buy more of their products. All this crap does is make it harder for kids, poorer people and the like to be your costumers.

And here we go with the "shill" accusation.

I just hope posters in this thread can understand that some Gamers can actually see the logic in an "on-line pass" and even support the practice with out being some corporate shill.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Public accountant here, just so you're not confused.

So you have no problem w/ a used game purchase using Sony servers (for possibly months and months) even though they paid no money to Sony?

The online play is included with the purchase price. If I play the game online for a year or if my brother plays it for a year, it makes no diference to the publisher. There is still someone playing. So the question becomes... Exactly how much online play is in a new packaged game?

 

[Willy Wanka]

I buy all my games new (although very rarely at release nowadays) so this doesn't really affect me much at the moment. It's not a practice I support however and unfortunately I think the next step could be giving these 'vouchers' expiry dates meaning that unless I buy the game new in the first few months after release, I will have to pay extra anyway.

 

[Mikor]

Read over the first page.

Who wants to (not literally) bet that if this is an "Online Pass", as it most likely will be, that PS+ subscribers will get automatic access to all Online features of all PSN games? As in, no PSN Pass required to play X game online, unless you are NOT a PS+ member.

 

[slider]

Haven't read the entire thread but I'll advocate what I always advocate with unpopular initiatives... vote with your feet. It's the only way you'll be listened to.

 

[Karma]

And here we go with the "shill" accusation.

I just hope posters in this thread can understand that some Gamers can actually see the logic in an "on-line pass" and even support the practice with out being some corporate shill.

So you never borrow games from friends? Do you sell any of your games?

 

[rainking187]

Only the guide book is last time I checked.

Guide book, sound track and making of. Wouldn't be surprised if the art book ended up going the same way.

 

[snap0212]

And books don't have an online component that a platform holder has to support at thier cost.

This entire thread has me shaking my head.

Are you talking about the online component that the person who bought new has already paid for? He already covered the costs for one person playing the game.

 

[Himself]

Good. It's important to support developers.

Even though I only see this being applied to games that are guaranteed to be mega-bazillion sellers, anyway.

 

[KingDizzi]

Thought I was a bitch for wanting GT and MH to do well sales wise but WOW so many more people are worse in this thread. When games are put up for rent don't the likes of Lovefilm have to pay extra for one disc? These bastard devs are already making their money and now want more. Can't quite get over how many people on this forum care about fucking billion dollar companies and how they do, as consumers don't you want bang for your buck? Practice like this is crippling the consumer. Most other mediums have to deal with used sales but none that I can think of fuck the consumer so badly, really hope people have shares with the companies they care about so much. Made a killing with Activision a few years ago, was a good time.

EA and Sony are doing this for all their titles now, have MS, Activision, Ubisoft etc started yet?

 

[I3rand0]

Read over the first page.

Who wants to (not literally) bet that if this is an "Online Pass", as it most likely will be, that PS+ subscribers will get automatic access to all Online features of all PSN games? As in, no PSN Pass required to play X game online, unless you are NOT a PS+ member.

I was thinking the same thing. Guess we'll find out soon enough.

 

[Guevara]

I buy all my games new (although very rarely at release nowadays) so this doesn't really affect me much at the moment. It's not a practice I support however and unfortunately I think the next step could be giving these 'vouchers' expiry dates meaning that unless I buy the game new in the first few months after release, I will have to pay extra anyway.

I can see this happening in the longterm. In the short term you'll be asked to put in a 16 digit code every time you buy a new game to verify your online pass. Between this and and mandatory installs, console gaming is becoming more and more like PC gaming.

 

[Zen]

This bullshit needs to fucking stop. No matter who does it: EA, ACTV or Sony.

Why Sony? Don't go down this path!

Do it Sony, the people and companies that bankrolled the games get nothing from a used game sale, might as well get something from it where they can. I sell my games all the time AND I borrow games from friends, I exercise all the reasonable options available to me, but in now way are companies in the wrong for doing this, and they have every right to attempt to get some money back from the second hand sale of games by retailers (some of whom promote the used copies over the retail copies).

 

[Jin34]

Public accountant here, just so you're not confused.

So you have no problem w/ a used game purchase using Sony servers (for possibly months and months) even though they paid no money to Sony?

BA in Business Management here and this is part of the problem, these types of things make sense to them because they are easier to quantify, the argument I used against it is much harder to go "X leads directly to Y" but you are cutting off revenue for you and every other company. I trade in some games when Gamestop does their extra money for trade ins promotions and have used that to buy stuff like new games, points cards (that then get used to buy downloadable games or a map pack). But if you restrict yourself to such a narrow way of looking at things you can't see the bigger picture of what you are doing.

Oh and about using their servers, gimme a break, most of these games are P2P and they sell a ton of overpriced map packs (stuff that used to be free on PC and sometimes still is), withhold content on the disc or that used to be part of the game in previous gens to sell it for extra, do retailer exclusive content which means nobody gets the full version and yet you guys still come in complaining about used games and other nonsense when you have tons more ways to milk money than before.

 

[corporate cheerleader]

Public accountant here, just so you're not confused.

So you have no problem w/ a used game purchase using Sony servers (for possibly months and months) even though they paid no money to Sony?

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.

You guys can really spin anything out of control. It's cute <3

Oops. Well, sorry for wasting your time.

 

[DatBreh]

Kill gamestop and you will kill a large chunk of the industry. They sell truckloads of new games.

Yeah because people cant go right down the street and buy the game from Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart, Toys R Us, Frys, KMart, Costco, etc.....

 

[alr1ght]

Yeah because people cant go right down the street and buy the game from Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart, Toys R Us, Frys, KMart, Costco, etc.....

where do you think people get that $60 every month? They trade stuff in.

 

[Thrakier]

Let's just review the conversation here:

1) Gram Negative Cocci: "I don't like this"
2) Exuro: "Why not?"
3) Me: "Because it does not benefit us and it could cost us money"
4) You: "Yes but it benefits Sony"
5) Me: "Okay, but I'm not Sony"
6) You: "Yes but it benefits Sony"

...

Are we discussing the industry and what makes sense for the industry or is it just "I want that" and "I want that not". Used games market is a "problem" for the industry and some of the game makers we love. It sure makes sense to find a middleground which both parties are good with.

 

[Jin34]

And here we go with the "shill" accusation.

I just hope posters in this thread can understand that some Gamers can actually see the logic in an "on-line pass" and even support the practice with out being some corporate shill.

You are right, those people actually get paid to shill, you do it for free. My apologies to the corporate shills for comparing you to guys like this.

 

[NullPointer]

I just hope posters in this thread can understand that some Gamers can actually see the logic in an "on-line pass" and even support the practice with out being some corporate shill.

How is this in any way, shape or form good for the gamer/consumer? That's all I'd like to know.

If the answer is that it benefits the publisher who will then invest their earnings towards positive results for the consumer, I'd love to see where and when that has ever actually happened.

I won't cal anybody a shill, but its handy to know which gaffers are part of StockholderGAF.

 

[Gram Negative Cocci]

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?

Because the guy SOLD his game and he is not using their service anymore?

Are you all acting crazy now just because Sony stepped on this HUGE mine?

You are not "stealing" their resources/ services/ bandwidth when you buy a game used and go online. The dude who paid for it full is NOT playing anymore, he can't be! If he played this game instead of selling it to you it would make no friggin difference to Sony's online network.

Drop the blinds, this is bad for the customer. There is literally NO upside to this.

 

[demosthenes]

The online play is included with the purchase price. If I play the game online for a year or if my brother plays it for a year, it makes no diference to the publisher. There is still someone playing. So the question becomes... Exactly how much online play is in a new packaged game?

Ok, now this is something we can work with.

This is a great point and one I hadn't thought of yet. The way I see it is that this is a way for Sony to get around charging for online. Their games are still free to play online if you buy new and they can always waive that over 360.

edit: The bold I guess is the heart of the matter and that I cannot answer right now.

 

[Dynedom]

unfortunately I think the next step could be giving these 'vouchers' expiry dates meaning that unless I buy the game new in the first few months after release, I will have to pay extra anyway.

This. I have no problem with used buyers having to pay ONCE to play online indefinitely. I do have an issue with where this could possibly lead (i.e. the timed passes, etc).

The thing I disagree with regarding online passes is that, to my knowledge, they don't decrease in price as time goes by (unlike the games they're attached to). If a game goes down in price over time, the Online Pass associated with a used copy of that game should also fall in price. Again I'm talking about discounts through TIME not one-off holiday sales 1 month after release, etc. Should you really play 10 dollars to play, say, Modern Warfare 1? =\

 

[Dragon]

This is the thing I hate most about gaf, all the damn shills and since so many here work in the industry its hard to tell who's posting propaganda and who isn't. It would be great if people that worked had tags so I could dismiss their posts on stuff like this more easily. Funny thing is this whole war on used games is so goddamned stupid by how short sighted it is, do they not realize that the hordes who trade in games at gamestop do it so they can buy new games, points cards, accessories basically to buy more of their products. All this crap does is make it harder for kids, poorer people and the like to be your costumers.

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.

 

[CadetMahoney]

PSN+ plus what? plus another $10 please.

K thx. bai. . . signed Sony.

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

 

[demosthenes]

Because the guy SOLD his game and he is not using their service anymore?

Are you all acting crazy now just because Sony stepped on this HUGE mine?

You are not "stealing" their resources/ services/ bandwidth when you buy a game used and go online. The dude who paid for it full is NOT playing anymore, he can't be! If he played this game instead of selling it to you it would make no friggin difference to Sony's online network.

Drop the blinds, this is bad for the customer. There is literally NO upside to this.

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.

 

[survivor]

It's a very unrealistic scenario that will probably anger GameStop very much, but I'm starting to wonder if a viable option for used sales is to have the publisher participate in it. As in, you can resell your games back to Sony, and they can sell them from their online store as used. They end up making more money than $10 vouchers either way.

Either way I find this practice very shitty. It won't affect me very much since only used games I buy are single player focused, but still, a shitty situation for other people.

 

[nickmarks]

hope it is a monthly fee that i get all the PSN games for free then.

 

[Mooreberg]

Haven't read the entire thread but I'll advocate what I always advocate with unpopular initiatives... vote with your feet. It's the only way you'll be listened to.

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.

 

[notworksafe]

It's a very unrealistic scenario that will probably anger GameStop very much, but I'm starting to wonder if a viable option for used sales is to have the publisher participate in it. As in, you can resell your games back to Sony, and they can sell them from their online store as used. They end up making more money than $10 vouchers either way.

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

As far as this being an online pass, it isn't new for Sony. Socom for PSP had something like this, it just wasn't called PSN Pass.

 

[Karma]

Ok, now this is something we can work with.

This is a great point and one I hadn't thought of yet. The way I see it is that this is a way for Sony to get around charging for online. Their games are still free to play online if you buy new and they can always waive that over 360.

The the point above, a financial transaction took place and someone else purchased the game though, it's a new owner. I think it's implicit in in buying goods that anyone in your house will use them. Though this does limit the ability for letting friends borrow games, doesn't it?

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

 

[Kafel]

Stump >> veulent

 

[Omiee]

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.