Support NeoGAF

[Pope Benedict XVI]

Surely this is wont happen, I mean the companies that run the rental and second hand game business are the ones selling all the first hand titles, you'd think a move like this would piss them off a lot.

it would piss them off, but it's not like they can realistically choose to not stock PS3 games. They could give favourable treatment to the xbox360 though. That's certainly something sony needs to include in their balancing act.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Ok. Here is another hypotheis:

-Message arrives on screen:
dear customer this game is already registered on GAMERX profile. IF you want to play this game online please pay X euro or ask for authorization to GAMERX (Friends problem solved). Thank you.

Also, maybe you can also pay with Entitlements rather than real money. Like you got those 1000 Entitlement points from previous games sales and now you are given the possibility to either pay to go online or use, say, 100 Entitlement Points.

I like the ability of paying with Entitlements, well in my SCE-loving mode that is

 

[Zaptruder]

they were already paid for the game when it was sold the first time, so it's not a screwjob...

From the customer perspective, it seems fair right?

I'm willing to pay for it, I pay for it, what should it matter if its second hand?

Where does all that money go? Some of it to the person that sold it, most of it to the store that put a sticker on it and put it in the second hand section.

For the publisher; They had 2 potential customers; but because of the second hand store, it actually becomes just 1 paying customer.

With piracy... they may have people ripping off their games, but most of them wouldn't even be willing to pay for it in the first place, hence no lost revenue. For second hand sells; its proof in itself that they were willing to pay... but the people that made that game possible aren't been paid for it... when money has actually exchanged hands!

... with most other stuff that you can sell second hand, there's always some strong benefit to buying first hand... specifically; it doesn't have the performance degradation of a second hand item; with code... that's just not applicable.

With gamestores, the other difficulty of second hand purchases are eliminated; the barrier of having the opportunity to be in the right place at the right time in order to make the second hand purchases is removed; a wide selection of none degraded purchases at lower prices then new... there's little doubt then that a large amount of money intended for publisher and developer suddenly disappears; funneled away by unscrupulous stores.

The question then becomes if its right to 'double dip' for a copy of a game, but instead, how to, without negatively affecting the original customers?

This isn't a bad idea at all; if you don't have the internet and can't register, you can't play multiplayer to begin with; ergo it's meangingless to you.

An extension of this idea is my idea; rewarding the original buyer with the kind of extras you'd normally find on a CE disc (or maybe just simpler stuff like Xbox Live themes, picture packs, wallpapers, trailers, even signups to beta test other games... basically anything that's feasibly distributable via an online front end). Second hand purchases wouldn't get these extras free of charge; but they can still buy it if they want it.

 

[Panajev2001a]

From the customer perspective, it seems fair right?

I'm willing to pay for it, I pay for it, what should it matter if its second hand?

Where does all that money go? Some of it to the person that sold it, most of it to the store that put a sticker on it and put it in the second hand section.

For the publisher; They had 2 potential customers; but because of the second hand store, it actually becomes just 1 paying customer.

With piracy... they may have people ripping off their games, but most of them wouldn't even be willing to pay for it in the first place, hence no lost revenue. For second hand sells; its proof in itself that they were willing to pay... but the people that made that game possible aren't been paid for it... when money has actually exchanged hands!

... with most other stuff that you can sell second hand, there's always some strong benefit to buying first hand... specifically; it doesn't have the performance degradation of a second hand item; with code... that's just not applicable.

With gamestores, the other difficulty of second hand purchases are eliminated; the barrier of having the opportunity to be in the right place at the right time in order to make the second hand purchases is removed; a wide selection of none degraded purchases at lower prices then new... there's little doubt then that a large amount of money intended for publisher and developer suddenly disappears; funneled away by unscrupulous stores.

The question then becomes if its right to 'double dip' for a copy of a game, but instead, how to, without negatively affecting the original customers?

This isn't a bad idea at all; if you don't have the internet and can't register, you can't play multiplayer to begin with; ergo it's meangingless to you.

An extension of this idea is my idea; rewarding the original buyer with the kind of extras you'd normally find on a CE disc (or maybe just simpler stuff like Xbox Live themes, picture packs, wallpapers, trailers, even signups to beta test other games... basically anything that's feasibly distributable via an online front end). Second hand purchases wouldn't get these extras free of charge; but they can still buy it if they want it.

Sure, a special reward for registering your game on Sony's Host Servers could very well be unlocking special extras that would go only to the buyer of a new game and more if you sell/lend the game out and the other person goes online with it.

 

[Feindflug]

I hope that's not true...such a stupid idea. -__-

 

[TTP]

I hope that's not true...such a stupid idea. -__-

Why is that stupid if it allows to financially support an "online for free" environment without even asking you, original game buyer, a dime?

What we have to wonder about is how much we would like to pay in order to activate the online portion of a used game. I think we can start by doing this division:

Xbox Live Silver Subscription (50$): avarage number of games played online yearly.

Assuming we play online an avarage of 10 games a year, I'd go with the "no more than 5$" option.

Of those 5$, 50% might go to Sony, 40% to the game Publisher and 10% to the original buyer in the form of Entitlement Points (hence you'd need to buy & sell 10 new games in order to go online with one used game for free - that is, spending the Entitlement Points you gained by selling those 10 new games).

 

[Nvidia]

Originally Posted by Feindflug:
I hope that's not true...such a stupid idea. -__-

Why is that stupid if it allows to financially support an "online for free" environment without even asking you, original game buyer, a dime?

because its from Sony

 

[mrklaw]

The question then becomes if its right to 'double dip' for a copy of a game, but instead, how to, without negatively affecting the original customers?
.

If publishers were so pissed off at not getting used money, they could stop supplying GAME and other stores that sell used alongside new, unless those stores agreed to pass along a percentage of used fees.


I don't have an issue with used games as such. And most times you buy used the original company doesn't get another cut. But used games are sold right alongside new ones, and it could be argued that the money from new games sales - not to mention POS from publishers etc, helps to keep the used games in such prime retail locations.

I don't have a problem if they have used only stores. Some GAME stores in the UK are like this, but they still sell new stuff and use publisher supplied POS material to help legitimise/market the content.

 

[Panajev2001a]

because its from Sony

Are you joking or not ? My sarcasm meter broke long time ago.

 

[Mario]

If publishers were so pissed off at not getting used money, they could stop supplying GAME and other stores that sell used alongside new, unless those stores agreed to pass along a percentage of used fees.

How?

Edit: or rather, how can they viably do that when said retailer(s) would just happily stop stocking their game new so the publisher loses out entirely?

 

[Ghost]

Originally Posted by Feindflug:
I hope that's not true...such a stupid idea. -__-

because its from Sony

Jumping to conclusions much? Surely anyone could see how people who buy a lot of used games would not like this idea.



Personally i dont, so i find it intriguing, i dont really see it as a way of generating capital for the online service though, i mean Live is $50 a year, so to get an equivalent you are asking every PS3 owner to buy what? 10 used games and play 'em online a year? Seems unlikely that this will be any more than a drop in bucket in terms of funding.

I see it more as a way of giving some clue to publishers about what happens to their games when they leave the shelves, not titles but individual boxes, im sure thats something they will love.

Theres also this side based around rewarding the first time player for sharing, which sounds interesting, id worry though that in order to make it impossible to exploit it will infact end up not worth very much. Wait and see on that.

 

[mrklaw]

How?

Edit: or rather, how can they viably do that when said retailer(s) would just happily stop stocking their game new so the publisher loses out entirely?

They all do it. through sony?

 

[TTP]

Jumping to conclusions much? Surely anyone could see how people who buy a lot of used games would not like this idea.



Personally i dont, so i find it intriguing, i dont really see it as a way of generating capital for the online service though, i mean Live is $50 a year, so to get an equivalent you are asking every PS3 owner to buy what? 10 used games and play 'em online a year? Seems unlikely that this will be any more than a drop in bucket in terms of funding.

Well, if Sony gets 2,5$ for each used game that goes online (50% of those 5$ as of my example above) they would need lots of these kind of transactions to take place indeed. But then again, they offered free online play on PS2 so I can see them trying to just get "some" money with the PS3 online environment rather than aim for the amount MS gains with its Live Silver thing right away.

It's not like Sony will rely just on this Entitlments thing to make money tho.

 

[P90]

It is a good thing that libraries don't operate like this proposed plan.

 

[Mario]

They all do it. through sony?

Isn't that pretty much what this system is? Controlling the used game market at the platform level?

 

[gofreak]

I'm still missing why used game sellers would be pissed about this, assuming the fee charged to activate a used game for online play was not prohibitively expensive compared to the cost of a new game.

 

[Nvidia]

Are you joking or not ? My sarcasm meter broke long time ago.

j/k i think:lol

 

[Mario]

I'm still missing why used game sellers would be pissed about this, assuming the fee charged to activate a used game for online play was not prohibitively expensive compared to the cost of a new game.

Any dollar spent on activating the game is a dollar less profit margin (though they would probably offset this by reducing the prices paid to consumers for their trades).

 

[Pug]

Gofreak, the first thing that will happen if 2nd hand games are more difficult to shift due this, prices will be lowered (cash price to gamer), they are already a rip off.

 

[gofreak]

Any dollar spent on activating the game is a dollar less profit margin (though they would probably offset this by reducing the prices paid to consumers for their trades).

Well, exactly, even in the case they had to charge less for used games, you can bet they'd protect their margins by offering less to the customer selling their game. But I think, regardless, they'd be more inclined to charging no differently for used PS3 games than used 360 or PS2 games or whatever, and consider the online fees not to be their issue. Afterall, they didn't discount used Xbox games relative to used PS2 games just because you had to pay to play online with the former, and didn't with the latter (mostly).

edit - see above, Pug, they don't have to, and I doubt they would discount used PS3 games because of this.

 

[Yoboman]

As long as I have the ability to borrow a game without paying... Wouldn't such a system, once you've paid, legally make the game yours - even if it is a rental? It sounds like a weird system from a legal view. I can totally understand it from the buying used games pespective though, but having to pay twice is also a bitch.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Any dollar spent on activating the game is a dollar less profit margin (though they would probably offset this by reducing the prices paid to consumers for their trades).

Which will further reduce the incentive to sell your used games to a retail store.

 

[Pug]

Gofreak they won't discount games at all but they will give the seller less.

 

[gofreak]

Gofreak they won't discount games at all but they will give the seller less.

Why (asides from wanting to make more money )? They don't give the sellers of Xbox games less money than for PS2 games you can play online for free, do they?

If they were to try and pull that trick it'd be up to the sellers to lobby them out of that kind of behaviour.

 

[Mario]

Gofreak they won't discount games at all but they will give the seller less.

They would pretty much have to reduce their sale prices by at least the amount of the activation fee wouldn't they?

Margins are already pushed to the limit on most used games, so if there was any sort of activation fee you'd probably be better off buying new if the used prices were the same.

 

[Pug]

The simple fact that PS3 may not sell through 2nd hand channels as fast as PS2 games. Gmers will soon find out they have to pay twice and this may mean that titles are sitting on shelves, longer, if they are shelves longer the shops will offer less.

 

[gofreak]

The simple fact that PS3 may not sell through 2nd hand channels as fast as PS2 games. Gmers will soon find out they have to pay twice and this may mean that titles are sitting on shelves, longer, if they are shelves longer the shops will offer less.

You're paying again for online. Something not unknown to the universe Like I said, if the fee is not prohibitive versus the cost of a new game, and I doubt it would be, then used games will still move (and for the significant proportion of people who are unlikely to go online, it's a moot point).

But if games were slower to move, it'd then be down to shops to reduce their prices (and yes, reduce the credit given to sellers).

But I don't think Sony would view this as a punishment for people buying second hand games, rather a bonus for those who buy new.

 

[TTP]

As long as I have the ability to borrow a game without paying... Wouldn't such a system, once you've paid, legally make the game yours - even if it is a rental? It sounds like a weird system from a legal view. I can totally understand it from the buying used games pespective though, but having to pay twice is also a bitch.

As far as I know, games for rent are not just retail games put on the rental shelves but rather games "approved" to be rented (ie: cost more to the shop that rents them). So, these "special" games for rent may very well offer free online gaming who whoever rents them.

 

[Mr. Pointy]

It's not a bad idea.

 

[Mmmkay]

Hah, I so called this scheme as a method of funding the online services in the other thread!

I like this version, because it satisfies most of the criticisms I had about the previous proposal. It only affects online users, and only to the point where they want to use an online service. It also prevents a 'that evil game' stigma if the service was only rolled out on specific titles. It's a one-off fee, that would (theoretically, and practically) still result in the used game costing less than a new one. The scheme could be made flexible with a 'friend code' to authorise usage on a smaller timeframe, to mitigate the issue of lending out a game.

 

[luxsol]

This sucks for those who rent or buy used, but i sorta like this.

Since every game has a unique ID would this allow the publisher/developer to ban a griefer from playing the game online as well?
Sure, the gamer has an account already attached to his console but this allows for game specific banning or even just suspension. Since this could be game specific wouldn't it make bannings easier to do?
How does MS handle bannings with Xbox Live and did the publisher have control over it?

 

[teepo]

if this is true i would bet you can avoid having your friends pay the fee by just having their username on your friends list.

 

[Pope Benedict XVI]

But I think, regardless, they'd be more inclined to charging no differently for used PS3 games than used 360 or PS2 games or whatever, and consider the online fees not to be their issue. Afterall, they didn't discount used Xbox games relative to used PS2 games just because you had to pay to play online with the former, and didn't with the latter (mostly).

The fact that the fee is tied to the buying of games does make it different though.

Once someone pays for Live Gold that money is gone, it's history, and that won't change regardless of how many games you buy. Once an online 360 user gets over that initial outlay he/she won't be influenced by it in terms of buying games..

PS3 users on the other hand will continue to mentally add the online fee to the sticker price of used games. If shops don't compensate for that then sales will go down.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

It seems like a pretty fair way to keep server costs reasonable (free) for the rest of us.

But since Sony's not hosting central servers, should they really be doing this on behalf of other companies? Who would the money be going to?

This sounds fake to me.

 

[Nameless]

Why would any gamer "like" this? A lot of you Sony guys are falling toward Nintendo fan levels, which is sad. Just because 'your' company has an idea, doesn't make it a good one.

Implementation of this sort of thing would no doubt leave room for what I think is the inevitable escalation to publishers banning certain used titles altogether(bigger ones such as say MGS4 or FFXIII) and eventually all games period.

Games I really want I buy new, but there are times where I may wait on a title due to not being sure about it, or having too much on my gaming plate at the time. Used games makes backlogging easier, and there are some great deals offered. For christ sake i'm already paying $600 for the system.

 

[TTP]

It seems like a pretty fair way to keep server costs reasonable (free) for the rest of us.

But since Sony's not hosting central servers, should they really be doing this on behalf of other companies? Who would the money be going to?

This sounds fake to me.

Sony is hosting the whole PS Network and I'm pretty confidend money will go to both Sony and the publisher of a given game just like those Microsoft points you spend to buy stuff on Marketplace go to the publisher and MS as well.

What is unknow (and it will hardly be public) is the percentages.

 

[TTP]

Implementation of this sort of thing would no doubt leave room for what I think is the inevitable escalation to publishers banning certain used titles altogether(bigger ones such as say MGS4 or FFXIII) and eventually all games period.

Why would they ban used titles? To piss Sony, their customers and renounce to the extra money the get from second hand game sales?

 

[plagiarize]

i like the idea of being rewarded as someone who buys games brand new, as i buy pretty much everything brand new. essentially i'd be being rewarded with 'free' online compared to the 360... and other 'entitlement bonuses' perhaps?

however, i'd also like there to be a subscription model so that someone who buys or rents a lot could just pay a single yearly fee and not have to worry about doing this for every game they have.

i'm also presuming that it would be tied to my 'account' and not my hardware... so if i have to replace my ps3 (or i buy a PSthree in four years time) i'm not getting charged to play my games online.

what i don't like about the idea though, is that it potentially limits what i can do with my games.

there is a way around that though... if i can set up my ps3 account with a single username and password set, and easily log into any ps3 and play my games online... then that'd be good enough for me. i often take games with me when i go over to my friends houses and we sometimes play stuff online. if i had to always bring my console with me, that'd be an annoyance i could do without.

it's an interesting idea, but just like microtransactions on the 360, we really have to see how this is implemented (pricing structure, ease of doing it, ease of transferring an account from one ps3 to the next) before we start crying foul or saying that it's a good thing.

 

[TTP]

if i had to always bring my console with me, that'd be an annoyance i could do without.

Going by what the patent says, all you would need to bring with you is your memory card.

 

[jjasper]

Looks like publishers would be happy. EB, GS, and ebay not so much.

 

[knitoe]

When's the next major date where we can get the complete system spec, launch titles, online plans, and etc.? Launch is approaching quick.

 

[CSSer]

When's the next major date where we can get the complete system spec, launch titles, online plans, and etc.? Launch is approaching quick.

TGS in less than 2 weeks: Sept 22nd

 

[knitoe]

TGS in less than 2 weeks: Sept 22nd

Cool. I am tired of all these rumors and speculations.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

I'm not sure what to think.

Spoiler

Personally I'd rather just pay a flat fee and be done with it.

 

[j^aws]

...
Games I really want I buy new, but there are times where I may wait on a title due to not being sure about it, or having too much on my gaming plate at the time. Used games makes backlogging easier, and there are some great deals offered. For christ sake i'm already paying $600 for the system.

My feelings exactly.

A hidden cost that you can add to that price tag. It doesn't really help people that always have a perpetual backlog and buy used. Depending on what this "fee" is, it can cost you more per annum than Live...

 

[plagiarize]

Going by what the patent says, all you would need to bring with you is your memory card.

that's still an extra expense on my part, even if it'd be one that works out cheaper in the long run.

i was just figuring that since the system i'd be playing on would need to be online for it to matter, that it'd be nice if i could just log in with my username and password and not have to deal with it, sort of like the way Steam authenticates things.

 

[Y2Kev]

I rarely (if ever) buy used, so I kinda like this idea. Keeps my online free.

 

[TTP]

that's still an extra expense on my part, even if it'd be one that works out cheaper in the long run.

i was just figuring that since the system i'd be playing on would need to be online for it to matter, that it'd be nice if i could just log in with my username and password and not have to deal with it, sort of like the way Steam authenticates things.

It can work that way too (again, patent says so). We just dont know for sure if that's how it will eventually work. It's all about potential you know

 

[Funky Papa]

This tech/management system is a gigantic can of worms waiting to be opened. Anybody who thinks it is cool or that no corporation would try to **** over the consumers for a few bucks deserves its inevitable outcome.

 

[TTP]

You mean like Microtransactions turning into actual "Macrotransactions"?