• 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]

hey_it's_that_dog

benevolent sexism
General Shank-a-snatch said:
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.

I fully agree that additional profits are unlikely to have a strong impact on game quality or quantity given the assumption of greed and desire for rapid growth.

I disagree that if they "made better games" then people wouldn't sell them. Even the best games diminish in enjoyability over time, and (some) people get tired of them, stop playing them, at which point the rational choice may be to sell them. That's not to say there's no effect of game quality on the decision to sell. Obviously, a shitty game or a really short game or a game that is only fun once is very likely to be sold. However, I think there is a place for short games and games that are only fun once.

What would really keep people from selling games is if they were designed to be more addictive, like WOW and CoD, and I'm willing to go out on a limb and say nobody here wants a world in which all games are like that.
 

slider

Member
Putting all the dots together and going with the consensus that it is gonna be an online pass (as with EA) I wonder if you'll be able to deploy your pass across your five accounts? :p
 

Dynedom

Member
slider said:
Putting all the dots together and going with the consensus that it is gonna be an online pass (as with EA) I wonder if you'll be able to deploy your pass across your five accounts? :p

That would definitely mitigate the issue when it comes to lending somewhat. If you could deactivate it on your console, it would be better too but I guess that defeats the purpose entirely, haha.
 
alr1ghtstart said:
The use of Sony's servers is built in to the initial $60. They got their money.

Right, and there is no time limit on when this time starts or ends. I could play for a year online or could sell the game a month after launch and the new owner plays for 11 months. At the end of the day, one person is on the servers for a year.
 

larvi

Member
goldenpp72 said:
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.

Umm..the rental companies don't print their own copies of the games as far as I know. They buy multiple copies from the publisher creating a demand that wouldn't be there if the renters weren't there. It's like saying people that go to the movies aren't supporting the movie studios because they are paying the theater and not the movie studio directly.
 

Karma

Banned
CozMick said:
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 :/

Your trade in will be worth less. You are affected.
 
alr1ghtstart said:
The use of Sony's servers is built in to the initial $60. They got their money.

Yea the more I think about it, if Sony wants to get money for server use they should go down the Live path.

Good job GAF, consider me swayed.
 

patsu

Member
slider said:
Putting all the dots together and going with the consensus that it is gonna be an online pass (as with EA) I wonder if you'll be able to deploy your pass across your five accounts? :p

Hypothetically speaking...
What if Sony adds new PSN features to the Pass ? ^_^
Technically speaking, the $60 today does not cover for that new feature.

Let's see how smart Sony is...
 

alr1ght

bish gets all the credit :)
CozMick said:
Yeah I trade shit in, but that's the used buyers problem tbh.

well congrats, that new $60 game you just bought is now worth less if you should choose to sell it in the future.
 
I don't care about this since i by my games new so this don't affect me .
Also before anyone talk about friends and family i don't lend out the games i bought for multiplayer and where i live selling back games don't really matter .

I rather they do this than make me pay for online.
 
demosthenes said:
Yea the more I think about it, if Sony wants to get money for server use they should go down the Live path.

Good job GAF, consider me swayed.


And they will next-gen. Free online is money left on the table. I'd say even better ROI than some first party titles.

This [the pass] is just baby steps.
 

Dorrin

Member
This kind of thinking will only lead to the following:

1) Consumers will counter by waiting longer to buy new, waiting for better new deals, amazon etc.

2) Consumers will counter the loss of recovery money via used games sales by not buying as many new games. I could even see more used sales as most online multiplayer is shit anyways.

3) The online player base of a game will shrink even faster and they already shrink fast. Most online playfields will be ghost towns, discovered through the free trail of course and nobody will buy the pass anyways. This will only work with huge communities such as COD, Halo etc.

4) The publisher will get angry at declining sales and put lockouts on single player content. I actually see this coming real soon anyways.

5) Incoming video game 'crash'. Gaming will start to see more shifts towards three things.
A) Very cheap 'games' on smartphones, facebook.
B) Block buster AAA COD type games were the extra price and all the lockouts can be justified.
C) Some PC gaming, using F2P MMOs, LOL etc to strech time for a dollar etc.

6) Boom crash time.


Maybe from the ashes we will get something better.
 

patsu

Member
alr1ghtstart said:
well congrats, that new $60 game you just bought is now worth less if you should choose to sell it in the future.

Not really. People are assuming the retailers do nothing. They can still reduce their $$ share of used games if used game supply and demand are affected too negatively.

Basically, the industry players in the value chain will react, and we will have a new picture depending on how gamers respond 6 months down the road.

The last time I discussed this with people on the net. Some people mentioned that it's illegal for the publishers to charge for the same thing twice even if resold. So this PSN Pass thing *could* have more tricks inside to sidestep the issue.
 

LuchaShaq

Banned
Guess I'll have to add Sony to the ever growing list of publishers I won't ever buy new

Would rather buy it used for same price and no online than support this horrible practice.
 

iNvid02

Member
i do sell my games, but not all of them. i have and will be keeping
- mgs4
- red dead redemption
- god of war 3
- uncharted seres
- resistance series
- infamous series

why? because i really enjoyed them. if i really enjoyed other games i wouldn't sell them on either.

all this is going to make me do is not buy games i am unsure about at launch, just wait until they have dropped in price drastically so the resale value is in line with the amount i paid in the first place.

i'll actually buy less new games because of this
 

goldenpp72

Member
larvi said:
Umm..the rental companies don't print their own copies of the games as far as I know. They buy multiple copies from the publisher creating a demand that wouldn't be there if the renters weren't there. It's like saying people that go to the movies aren't supporting the movie studios because they are paying the theater and not the movie studio directly.

A rental company buying 100 copies only to have 10k people experience them (totally out of my ass figure) is very little revenue. Thing is, this industry seems to be struggling to find enough userbase to sustain rising cost, a lot of people think next gen won't even be a leap because publishers won't want to fund even higher budget titles to take advantage of the hardware. Even though the videogame industry may gross similar to the movie industry, the amount of actual people who partake in it is much much smaller I imagine. Movies also have many ways to reach people, the theater, dvd/BR, on demand, movie channels, then hitting network tv, where as games kind of release at full price, go budget price, and then just stop gaining revenue it seems.

My issue with the industry is how much extra bullshit publishers add to games, I rarely pay 60 for any game nowadays because I'm certain they are gonna release some kind of DLC i'll want later and probably should have been on the disc in the first place, but I still choose to buy new to make sure my money ends up in the pockets of X publisher that put out the game I enjoy. I outright didn't purchase MVC3 because of shit like megaman not appearing and their proposed (but canceled?) dlc bullshit, but in the event I DO buy it, I will at least ensure that whatever amount I put to it, will be in the publishers pocket. They can see i'm willing to pay 20 bucks for a great but nerfed product, and hopefully learn i'll happily pay full price for a product I feel is complete.

The industry needs to either expand to more people so that games can naturally sell a million to support higher budgets, or publishers need to find ways to stem the loss from users who do enjoy their experiences but end up not paying them anything for it. I'm not trying to take any kind of moral high ground, but I rarely buy used and when I do, its because I'm uncertain if I'll even enjoy a game, but when i end up buying used and liking it a lot, I make sure that in the event a sequel occurs, I kind of throw my money at them to support it.

Common sense, we see a lot of developers folding, we see rising budgets, and a lot of bullshit is occurring because of it, and while market expansion not occurring isn't our fault, not paying the people who put 2+ years of work into the game you're playing is, and if the publishers want to fight that off, annoying as it might be, I can see where they are coming from. I love games, I want the people who make them to get money so I can keep getting them.
 
Karma said:
Your trade in will be worth less. You are affected.

alr1ghtstart said:
well congrats, that new $60 game you just bought is now worth less if you should choose to sell it in the future.

Where do people get this? Companies have been including passes for online stuff for a while now, and it hasn't had much of an effect on the trade in price as far as I've seen.
 

patsu

Member
rainking187 said:
Where do people get this? Companies have been including passes for online stuff for a while now, and it hasn't had much of an effect on the trade in price as far as I've seen.

Yap, it is *possible* that used game sales are not affected majorly if the retailers decide to swallow part or all of the cost.
 
I'm fine with this trend

Everyone bitching about it wasn't planning to buy the game new which meant Sony wasn't going to make any money from you anyways. If there's absolutely anybody who would of bought this game new but now refuses to on principle (very few, if any) I guarantee you they're making enough money off used buyers paying ten bucks that they more than make up for it. There's really no drawback because what's the alternative? Pay $60 a year to play games online whether you bought them used or new?
 
NullPointer said:
Nothing says they can't do both.

Well when they do i will stop buying games and put money into another hobby maybe buy only single player games.
Truth is i don't ever see Sony charging for online , they let you play for free but put everything else in PSN + .
 

sankt-Antonio

:^)--?-<
i would do the same if i were sony.

i should be against this but i never sell/buy used and dont borrow games , i dont see this affecting me.i would even go as far and say that this is great if it keeps psn free.

+ DLC is a much bigger problem in my eyes.
 

Karma

Banned
Houston3000 said:
I'm fine with this trend

Everyone bitching about it wasn't planning to buy the game new which meant Sony wasn't going to make any money from you anyways. If there's absolutely anybody who would of bought this game new but now refuses to on principle (very few, if any) I guarantee you they're making enough money off used buyers paying ten bucks that they more than make up for it. There's really no drawback because what's the alternative? Pay $60 a year to play games online whether you bought them used or new?

I would rather Sony charge a yearly fee and not charge me every time I borrow a game or buy a used game. Would be cheaper.
 

patsu

Member
Y2Kev said:
I hate entering codes when I buy a game.

If they really want to, they can register the first buyer automatically.



bdizzle said:
I'm gonna hope this isn't what I think it is.

Yeah... I was hoping to find out more info first, before jumping into the discussion.
 

jcm

Member
DrPirate said:
- 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.

Most people play the majority of the time when they first own the game. During the time Second Hand Buyer is playing multiplayer, Original Buyer would most likely not have been playing much at all. It's the same theory that applies to gym memberships. Memberships are priced knowing that many people will buy a one year membership, go for a month or two, and then stop using it. If the original use could turn around and sell the remaining time on the annual membership, it would completely change the dynamics of the business.

There are arguments to be made on both sides, but it's not true that second hand sales don't increase the server activity beyond that expected from a single buyer.


Karma said:
I would rather Sony charge a yearly fee and not charge me every time I borrow a game or buy a used game. Would be cheaper.

And for me it's the opposite. That doesn't make either one of us right. It just means there's not a one size fits all policy.
 
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.


Aren't the last two covered by how PSN DRM works? These online passes should work just like (most) DLC/unlock keys in that you can account-share them on multiple PS3s and are usable by all accounts on said activated PS3s.
 
Karma said:
I would rather Sony charge a yearly fee and not charge me every time I borrow a game or buy a used game. Would be cheaper.

It's not going to be cheaper because everyone wants to make money off used game sales.
Pubs are still going to do a online pass even if you already pay for x box live .
The only way that can work is Sony make one system and pubs get a cut from it.
 

GQman2121

Banned
One day the used game industry (_______) will have a sit down with the publishers and work some type of profit sharing deal out. That's where this is heading before something like Onlive becomes a viable platform in 10 - 20 years.
 

Jin34

Member
Y2Kev said:
I hate entering codes when I buy a game.

Then get the *insert publisher here* pass! One time code that grants you access to all DLC from the publisher via a yearly subscription.
 
Houston3000 said:
Everyone bitching about it wasn't planning to buy the game new which meant Sony wasn't going to make any money from you anyways.
Wrong.

I don't rent or buy used, but I do give or borrow my games to friends.
 
This is offtopic but coming home from work, I heard on the radio that Sony told its Taiwanese company (?) that the PS4 is coming out in 2012 and will use body motion tech (Kinect). I almost drove off a cliff in anger, but I see no thread on gaf so is it fake or what?
 

patsu

Member
Lion Heart said:
This is offtopic but coming home from work, I heard on the radio that Sony told its Taiwanese company (?) that the PS4 is coming out in 2012 and will use body motion tech (Kinect). I almost drove off a cliff in anger, but I see no thread on gaf so is it fake or what?

There was a thread on it. In any case, PSEye and EyeToy already did some of the Kinect stuff. Even if the rumor is true, it won't be the only PS4 experience. No point getting worked up.
 
I think this is really weak if an online pass comes out of it. I've never seen an industry so fiercely attack the consumers of the second hand market. Books, movies, music... none of those mediums have a 'second hand tax' on them. Why do we as gamers accept this crap? We often pay more than any other consumer of a given product, and yet in the battle for publishers to get an increasingly larger slice of the pie we get caught in the crossfire. I'm happy that the UK market is such that if you wait long enough you can get virtually any game for a tenner in a couple months, but god damn is this annoying.
 
Houston3000 said:
I'm fine with this trend

Everyone bitching about it wasn't planning to buy the game new which meant Sony wasn't going to make any money from you anyways. If there's absolutely anybody who would of bought this game new but now refuses to on principle (very few, if any) I guarantee you they're making enough money off used buyers paying ten bucks that they more than make up for it. There's really no drawback because what's the alternative? Pay $60 a year to play games online whether you bought them used or new?

Speak for yourself. I was planning on buying MK9 new but when I heard it had the online pass bullshit I boycotted the game. My friend has the game and I won't even borrow it from him out of principal.

I won't buy any game that does that shit no matter what. I bought Demon's Soul used for $12 because I honestly thought it would suck. Now that I'm playing it and fell in love with it, I'm planning on getting Dark Soul's day 1. If Sony adds some online pass to Dark Souls, I won't buy the game period, used or new. I
 

1-D_FTW

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.

Because it doesn't solve the core issue and doing something like this only digs your beloved companies an even bigger hole.

If you want them to survive and thrive, they're going to have to accept market directions and adapt to them. A half-assed, do nothing measure that only alienates more people away from their business is the exact opposite of what they should be doing.

Worst of all, enablers cheering them on feeds what they want to hear. Which means they'll put off the necessary changes that needed to be made yesterday even longer. This is what puts companies out of business.
 
patsu said:
How does EA Pass solve this problem ?
It doesn't solve anything. It makes it a problem when my friends are locked out of multiplayer with a pay gate, regardless of whose paygate it might be.
 

larvi

Member
goldenpp72 said:
A rental company buying 100 copies only to have 10k people experience them (totally out of my ass figure) is very little revenue. Thing is, this industry seems to be struggling to find enough userbase to sustain rising cost, a lot of people think next gen won't even be a leap because publishers won't want to fund even higher budget titles to take advantage of the hardware. Even though the videogame industry may gross similar to the movie industry, the amount of actual people who partake in it is much much smaller I imagine. Movies also have many ways to reach people, the theater, dvd/BR, on demand, movie channels, then hitting network tv, where as games kind of release at full price, go budget price, and then just stop gaining revenue it seems.

Yeah, it may not be the revenue that they want but it's still revenue. And who's to say that any of those 10k would actually buy the game if renting wasn't an option? And if they did would they buy at $60 or wait until it hit the $4.99 bin?

I'm just pointing out that renters do indirectly drive revenue to a publisher. Same with used game purchasers since having a trade in market means that new game purchasers have more $$$ to buy titles when they first come out. Without that trade in market new game purchaser would most likely buy fewer titles or wait for a price drop before buying.
 
1-D_FTW said:
Because it doesn't solve the core issue and doing something like this only digs your beloved companies an even bigger hole.

If you want them to survive and thrive, they're going to have to accept market directions and adapt to them. A half-assed, do nothing measure that only alienates more people away from their business is the exact opposite of what they should be doing.

Worst of all, enablers cheering them on feeds what they want to hear. Which means they'll put off the necessary changes that needed to be made yesterday even longer. This is what puts companies out of business.

This reminds me of the music industry and it's fight against mp3's.

patsu said:
Yeah... I was hoping to find out more info first, before jumping into the discussion.

And to think, this shit all started with horse armor.
 
patsu said:
There was a thread on it. In any case, PSEye and EyeToy already did some of the Kinect stuff. Even if the rumor is true, it won't be the only PS4 experience. No point getting worked up.

Okay I found the thread. Thanks.
 

darkside31337

Tomodachi wa Mahou
So what are the chances this is just basically Rockstar pass (or all the other variants) and not an actual you can't play online if you buy used code.

Sony has done the DLC codes with their games before like with UC2 GOTY and what not. But now you slap on a nice marketing thing to it to inform gamers to stop buying $26.99 copies of UC2 when they can get all that DLC they might pay for for free with a new copy.

Everybody freaking out about it is probably right though.

Either way I'm pissed just because it's one more tacky logo slapped onto the cover of the game. Resistance 3 had some of the nicest cover art of any game this generation and it's already completely ruined by all the logos plastered over it. Now just tack on another one.
 

patsu

Member
bdizzle said:
And to think, this shit all started with horse armor.

Well, this is not the first time the forum get excited over a DRM feature. I remember people were angry over a report on Sony DRM preventing resale in 2005:
http://www.joystiq.com/2005/11/08/playstation-3-wont-play-used-games/

... which was denied later:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/ps3-second-hand-clampdown-is-false-speculation-sony

In the end, Sony used the game DRM to implement Portal 2 on Steam + PS3 bundle activation.


Would be nice if we can wait for more official info. I understand people who work in the game retail business may be alarmed, but we may be jumping the gun again.
 
Top Bottom