Project Ten Dollar. Online Pass. PSN Pass. It goes by a multitude of names, but a ripoff by any other name is still a ripoff. This abomination is absolutely nothing more than a cash grab by people who think they are entitled to more than the $60 MSRP their games sell for. The companies defend it by arguing that the upkeep of online features costs money, and that since second-hand sales don't go back to the publisher, they should be able to charge people with used copies to use online services. This seems reasonable on its surface, but it is based on the assumption that the sale of a used copy increases their costs.
That claim is pure, 100% grade-A bullshit.
Let N be the set of the copies of a particular title that are in the hands of customers (i.e. it doesn't include copies sitting in a warehouse, in the pre-owned bin, or in the garbage). The cardinality of N is the total number of elements in N, denoted |N|. A used copy shall be a copy that is no longer in possession of the original purchaser, but is still being played. Thus, N contains both new and used copies. Finally, let's define c as the cost per copy for online services. That is, the total cost for a particular title is c * |N|.
Do the costs for supporting a game increase with used game sales? Let's consider a game that sells 100,000 copies. So |N| = 100,000. After a month or so, 10% of them trade the game in to GameStop, and these copies are resold. In other words, 10,000 copies leave N and re-enter N as used copies. Since used copies are a subset of new copies by definition, a used sale will never increase the size of N past the highest selling point of the game. In this scenario, no matter how many times a used copy changes hands, |N| will never be larger than 100,000 unless someone buys the 100,001th copy new.
With Online Pass/PSN Pass, EA and Sony want you to accept that a used copy costs them more than a used copy. The truth is that a used copy doesn't cost the publisher any more than if the original owner had kept the copy for a longer amount of time. Put another way, the costs incurred for any given copy are accounted for in the initial sale, regardless of how many times that copy changes hands. EA/Sony's claim of "increased costs" is unsupported.
Just say no to Online Pass or PSN Pass.
That claim is pure, 100% grade-A bullshit.
Let N be the set of the copies of a particular title that are in the hands of customers (i.e. it doesn't include copies sitting in a warehouse, in the pre-owned bin, or in the garbage). The cardinality of N is the total number of elements in N, denoted |N|. A used copy shall be a copy that is no longer in possession of the original purchaser, but is still being played. Thus, N contains both new and used copies. Finally, let's define c as the cost per copy for online services. That is, the total cost for a particular title is c * |N|.
Do the costs for supporting a game increase with used game sales? Let's consider a game that sells 100,000 copies. So |N| = 100,000. After a month or so, 10% of them trade the game in to GameStop, and these copies are resold. In other words, 10,000 copies leave N and re-enter N as used copies. Since used copies are a subset of new copies by definition, a used sale will never increase the size of N past the highest selling point of the game. In this scenario, no matter how many times a used copy changes hands, |N| will never be larger than 100,000 unless someone buys the 100,001th copy new.
With Online Pass/PSN Pass, EA and Sony want you to accept that a used copy costs them more than a used copy. The truth is that a used copy doesn't cost the publisher any more than if the original owner had kept the copy for a longer amount of time. Put another way, the costs incurred for any given copy are accounted for in the initial sale, regardless of how many times that copy changes hands. EA/Sony's claim of "increased costs" is unsupported.
Just say no to Online Pass or PSN Pass.
