• 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.

Rumor: (PS3+entitlements management) might it start out like this ?

TTP said:
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 :D
if it works as i detailed above, then i like the idea because it gives me something for free that i normally pay for, and thanks me for being someone that buys something NEW.

encouraging people that buy stuff new by giving them something extra or free that they normally pay for, is the right way to approach encouraging more people to buy new. rather than punishing the people that don't by taking stuff away from them, though i'm sure some will say 'but i had free online on PS2!'... i doubt the service will be comparable just as PS2's online is not comparable to xbox 360's version of live.

this is potentially evil, or potentially a nice nod towards people that buy new. i'm optimistic that it's the latter.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
as someone that doesn't use LIVE a lot (but do want to sometimes) I like knowing that I can play online with games I want to, but without paying upfront for a LIVE type subscription.
 

King Dork

Member
Didn't read throught the entire thread, so don't know if this has already been mentioned. This seems highly likely, if you recall the Sony patent that caused such an uproar a while back that digitally tied games to the first ps3 console they were played on, making used games unplayable. So instead of making the used game unplayable, you just can't play them online. Seems like a legit rumor.
 
What makes me wonder is that with places like EBgames/Gamestop who tend to gut copies and "test" them. Will simply putting the game in the PS3 automatically register it?

I can only imagine the shitstorm if/when people buy "new" games and they get slapped with the registration fee.
 

Razoric

Banned
PepsimanVsJoe said:
What makes me wonder is that with places like EBgames/Gamestop who tend to gut copies and "test" them. Will simply putting the game in the PS3 automatically register it?

I can only imagine the shitstorm if/when people buy "new" games and they get slapped with the registration fee.

Haha yeah. EB employees will actually have to buy games now instead of playing them then selling as new. Sounds good to me. :D
 

IJoel

Member
I'm not entirely sold on the idea, but it wouldn't affect me much as I rarely buy used games. That said, it'd annoy me having to enter codes everytime I got an online game. :p
 
Pope Benedict XVI said:
I don't think Sony gives a toss about people who only by used games, and would be quite happy to take a big smelly dump on them. :(


If you were Sony, MS, or Nintendo...would you care about people who only buy used game?
 

thetrin

Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
Bebpo said:
If that's the ONLY time it is used, I support the idea. Then it basically just becomes like a cd-key for online gaming and maybe some of the profits will be cycled back to the publishers/developers.

Plus free online play is always cool.

If it means I get to play games online for free if I buy the game new, then I'm all about it.

If I was a developer, I would ****ing hate people who only buy used games. They're getting to play something I put hard work into without my company or I ever seeing a cent.
 
TTP said:
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.

I thought the whole point of PNP is that Sony has an open system to allow developers to host their own servers on Sony's network.
 

Brobzoid

how do I slip unnoticed out of a gloryhole booth?
blargh. I hate registering. ps2's online in europe sucks, you know why? cus they want a shitload of info and it's hell to input.
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
What do you have to register, again?

There'd be the once-off initial registration (where you sign up for the service period, ala your Live registration), and..? I saw someone mention earlier about having to put codes in or whatnot for each game, but there's nothing to indicate that in the OP, and looking at the patent cited earlier, the registration of the unique game id with the platform-holders databases could (and undoubtedly would) happen transparently, without the user's intervention i.e. they wouldn't see it at all.
 

kaching

"GAF's biggest wanker"
sugarhigh4242 said:
I thought the whole point of PNP is that Sony has an open system to allow developers to host their own servers on Sony's network.
Core services probably maintained by Sony servers, such as user accounts, friends lists, and perhaps basic matchmaking servers for games. It's still open if it allow devs/pubs to hook their own services in on top of the basic services.
 

Tellaerin

Member
TheTrin said:
If I was a developer, I would ****ing hate people who only buy used games. They're getting to play something I put hard work into without my company or I ever seeing a cent.

So as a writer, would you '****ing hate people' who only read your books at a library, because they were enjoying the fruits of your labor in a way that wasn't earning you money? If a major publishing company began a drive to eliminate libraries and used book stores so that they would see bigger profits, would you empathize with them, too? It's just strange how things people wouldn't tolerate in other industries suddenly become acceptable, even laudable when the conversation turns to videogames.
 

Drek

Member
I like the idea, though not the slipper slope it could lead us down.

Its a two sided model that keeps used game buyers from "eating for free" with the PS3's online network as well as letting Sony get their hands on used game profits that have been exclusive to the retail outlets.

I'd like to see a system in place where Sony agrees to send the original game buyer as well as the potential 3rd party involved some form of compensation. Ideally (for all involved, Sony included) the original buyer would recieve entitlement points, 3rd parties would get some form of assistance from Sony (reduced royalties on a sequel, premium advertising space on the PS3 network, etc.), enabling Sony to keep all the real money (their ultimate goal) while giving everyone else a taste of the action for helping in the process.

Personally I'd expect a fee between $5-$10. We're talking about used game buyers here, Sony could give a shit less about them as they do nothing to fund Sony, their online network, or their 3rd party allies. They can only get at the used game buyers who play online, so its a small fragment of the market, but at the very least it keeps them from enjoying free online gaming.

I think Sony (and many 3rd parties) want to attach a stigma to used game sales, but feel their hands are tied as many retail chains are in on the action (its huge profitability). In lieu of being able to directly attack the practice they are looking for ways to disuade the end user from considering it a worthwhile option. Something like this is a big step towards that goal.
 

svenuce

Member
I like this idea a lot (of course, I buy all of my games new and never rent).

So as a writer, would you '****ing hate people' who only read your books at a library, because they were enjoying the fruits of your labor in a way that wasn't earning you money?

As a matter of fact, yes I would.


If a major publishing company began a drive to eliminate libraries and used book stores so that they would see bigger profits, would you empathize with them, too? It's just strange how things people wouldn't tolerate in other industries suddenly become acceptable, even laudable when the conversation turns to videogames.

Do books or magazines cost $60+? Are the CoGs on a hardback book (much less a paperback) $10-$11? Do the largest bookstores in the country (Barnes & Noble, B. Dalton, Walden Books) that account for 30%-40% of the business deal in used books as a core part of their business? Did it cost $20m in development and $10m in marketing to bring any book to market and a team of 100+ people who's livelihood depends on that product? And do people REALLY go to libraries unless you're a kid in school working on a term paper?

Do you even know how books are "returned" to a publisher for credit from bookstores? The covers are ripped off and mailed back as proof they werent' sold and the rest of the book is destroyed/thrown away.

It's apples and oranges. I see your point, but they're completely different circumstances.
 

Ranger X

Member
I'm not totally against this practice as renting would still be possible.
But still i don't really believe this as they will pay their online infrastructure dozen times over just with publicity and microtransactions.
 

kaching

"GAF's biggest wanker"
Pope Benedict XVI said:
I don't think Sony gives a toss about people who only by used games, and would be quite happy to take a big smelly dump on them. :(
This rumor, if true, seems like a way for them to start loving used game buyers, since it would provide Sony a revenue stream from those used game sales ;)

It's interesting because it would seem like a practice that may ultimately see platform owners, publishers and developers actually encouraging used game sales, supplanting the used game market at B&M retailers in favor of their own online marketplace for used games as accessed through the console itself. Direct sales to other users on the network.
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
huh, so you could never give a game to someone if you were tired of playing it? What a terrible idea. I'd love to see what happens if Sony tries it though. Hopefully the consumers would get pissed off and reject the idea, but knowing modern consumers I doubt it.

Hey, at least topics like this let you see the Sony Defense Force in full swing though. "Less consumer rights for me? Great move Sony! Keep it up!"
 

Jeff-DSA

Member
Next-gen is turning into one big butt rape. I'm starting to fear every bit of news that comes out of any company that isn't just a simple game fact sheet.
 
'slippery slope' is never a valid argument for something like this.

Jack Thompson uses those kind of debating skills.

when and if something is put to a 'bad use' we call them out on it... stop buying. send hate letters... whatever we can do to stop them using it in that bad way. but we'll kill innovation if we step on anything that could POTENTIALLY be used in a bad way before it even gets going.

some microtransactions are over priced and that's a slippery slope? it doesn't follow i'm afraid.
 
Nerevar said:
Hey, at least topics like this let you see the Sony Defense Force in full swing though. "Less consumer rights for me? Great move Sony! Keep it up!"

Consumer rights? I'm a developer and would rather see that money in a bonus for the 100 hour weeks and personal sacrifices I endure to get a game finished.
 

kaching

"GAF's biggest wanker"
Nerevar said:
Hey, at least topics like this let you see the Sony Defense Force in full swing though. "Less consumer rights for me? Great move Sony! Keep it up!"
Your rights as a consumer are the same as ever: buy the product company X makes or don't buy. Are you suggesting that companies should be obligated to support secondhand copies of their product the same way they support their products still in the hands of their original owners?
 

Jeff-DSA

Member
artful_dodger said:
Consumer rights? I'm a developer and would rather see that money in a bonus for the 100 hour weeks and personal sacrifices I endure to get a game finished.

Start pricing games at $20 and you'll sell 3 times as many and used games won't be as appealing. I'd buy WAY more games at $20 and it would be worth it to me to buy new rather than a used copy since the savings wouldn't be so big.

Games cost too much brand new, especially with the jump to $60.
 

Ranger X

Member
plagiarize said:
'slippery slope' is never a valid argument for something like this.

Jack Thompson uses those kind of debating skills.

when and if something is put to a 'bad use' we call them out on it... stop buying. send hate letters... whatever we can do to stop them using it in that bad way. but we'll kill innovation if we step on anything that could POTENTIALLY be used in a bad way before it even gets going.

some microtransactions are over priced and that's a slippery slope? it doesn't follow i'm afraid.

Exactly, there is already some bad use of microtransaction and people isn't calling out. What makes you think they will call out the next thing you will perceive as abusing?
Anything that goes gradually people get used to it. It's the only "splippery slope" that exist. Calling out those practices doesn't mean there is abuse now, it's only prevention, it's calling out that this practice will gradually lead to exageration.
 

Dunpeal

Banned
artful_dodger said:
Consumer rights? I'm a developer and would rather see that money in a bonus for the 100 hour weeks and personal sacrifices I endure to get a game finished.


Wtf is this, piece of shit devs with their piece of shit games selling them at the same price as the top games, how about that?

How about the fact that games already cost more?

"Oh dev costs" gtfo, most devs games aren't even going to cost half of what top games cost last gen, and you still sell your game at premium. F dev rights.
 
Ranger X said:
Exactly, there is already some bad use of microtransaction and people isn't calling out. What makes you think they will call out the next thing you will perceive as abusing?
Anything that goes gradually people get used to it. It's the only "splippery slope" that exist. Calling out those practices doesn't mean there is abuse now, it's only prevention, it's calling out that this practice will gradually lead to exageration.
here's a thing to think about. when something is overpriced, what happens?

less people buy it or it isn't over priced.

what happened in the wake of the horse armour? price of subsequent content went down, volume of subsequent content went up.

why? because people complained.

people already have complained and we've already seen a reaction to that.

any company, anywhere is in a position to increase their prices on anything... or to start charging for something that was free before.

consumers will either think they're still getting a fair deal or cry out about it and the company will discover they went too far. this has been happening for decades, it will continue to happen even if what you're buying is a few levels in a video game, or the right to play a used game online.
 
Pope Benedict XVI said:
I don't think Sony gives a toss about people who only by used games, and would be quite happy to take a big smelly dump on them. :(


This is what i love about GAF, you can get threads that are basically "How can my company of choice make as much money as possible?" and you also get "This company takes a dump on all gamers the World over" Threads, when the 2 observations are practically the same.

I like the point about computer game clerks not being able to take games home and play them!
 
Dunpeal said:
Wtf is this, piece of shit devs with their piece of shit games selling them at the same price as the top games, how about that?

How about the fact that games already cost more?

"Oh dev costs" gtfo, most devs games aren't even going to cost half of what top games cost last gen, and you still sell your game at premium. F dev rights.

You obviously have no clue about this business.

game production costs = Rising.
game retail price = not rising. (even at 59.99 its not enough)
 

Ranger X

Member
plagiarize said:
here's a thing to think about. when something is overpriced, what happens?

less people buy it or it isn't over priced.

what happened in the wake of the horse armour? price of subsequent content went down, volume of subsequent content went up.

why? because people complained.

people already have complained and we've already seen a reaction to that.

any company, anywhere is in a position to increase their prices on anything... or to start charging for something that was free before.

consumers will either think they're still getting a fair deal or cry out about it and the company will discover they went too far. this has been happening for decades, it will continue to happen even if what you're buying is a few levels in a video game, or the right to play a used game online.

This summarize as "value is just a suggestion that you accept or not". I truly understand this all you know.
But since it will always be subjective i'll always point out what i think is exagerated and it's important to do so because fact is MANY (i could even use most) people doesn't really give a damn and they don't call out, they are not happy but they don't call out stuff because they think it's useless. It's this mentality that needs to be killed. By voicing shit up, if i ever make ONE person realise that something is a rip off or incitate someone calling out their own things my job is done imo.

PS: i know you didn't really said we shouldn't call out our stuff, just sharing more details on my opinions :)
 

Jeff-DSA

Member
artful_dodger said:
You obviously have no clue about this business.

game production costs = Rising.
game retail price = not rising. (even at 59.99 its not enough)

That's some grade-A bull**** you're trying to push there. If companies are complaining about declining profits, maybe they should stop pricing the mainstream out of gaming. $60 is not a mass-market friendly price tag for any product. Movies make TONS of money on DVD sales at $15-$20 because the buying mainstream can afford to buy many each year.

With a lower price point you'd increase sales of NEW software and the value in buying used would be diminished greatly. Used game stores exist because of developer/publisher greed. Lower the price point, invite more buyers, and kill the need for cheap alternatives.
 

Dunpeal

Banned
Jeff-DSA said:
That's some grade-A bull**** you're trying to push there. If companies are complaining about declining profits, maybe they should stop pricing the mainstream out of gaming. $60 is not a mass-market friendly price tag for any product. Movies make TONS of money on DVD sales at $15-$20 because the buying mainstream can afford to buy many each year.

With a lower price point you'd increase sales of NEW software and the value in buying used would be diminished greatly. Used game stores exist because of developer/publisher greed. Lower the price point, invite more buyers, and kill the need for cheap alternatives.

Movies cost more than games to make too.
 
Even with as much cynicsm i have about anything Sony is doing, I still don't belive this news. highly doubt it will ever happen.. but i also think it would be naive to not assume that once we transition to digital-distribution everything will have some sort of strict DRM-esque restrictions.

Jeff-DSA said:
That's some grade-A bull**** you're trying to push there. If companies are complaining about declining profits, maybe they should stop pricing the mainstream out of gaming. $60 is not a mass-market friendly price tag for any product. Movies make TONS of money on DVD sales at $15-$20 because the buying mainstream can afford to buy many each year.

With a lower price point you'd increase sales of NEW software and the value in buying used would be diminished greatly. Used game stores exist because of developer/publisher greed. Lower the price point, invite more buyers, and kill the need for cheap alternatives.

while im not agreeing with artful, youre arguement is fundamentally flawed. Movies have a completely different economy (and audience) associated with them.
 

Ranger X

Member
But there is something about movies that people seem to forget:

Most revenues are from Cinemas, not DVD sales. Especially big blockbusters. Videogames don't have such revenue stream beside retail.
Of course profit is more difficult to make with videogames in this case.
 

Jeff-DSA

Member
Ranger X said:
But there is something about movies that people seem to forget:

Most revenues are from Cinemas, not DVD sales. Especially big blockbusters. Videogames don't have such revenue stream beside retail.
Of course profit is more difficult to make with videogames in this case.

That's why you would want to expand your sales of new games by dropping their price. People won't buy used and 100% of game sales dollars go towards NEW SOFTWARE. Besides, at a much cheaper price, you're going to sell a lot more copies of each game. Impulse buying would be much greater as well. Heck, why would you even rent a game at $7 when you could BUY IT NEW for $20? You probably wouldn't...
 

goldenpp72

Member
Another factor the 20 dollar new game morons don't seem to understand is time. Movies are a 2 hour 15-20 dollar investment, people can buy numerous movies and watch them all. If all games were 20 sure game sales on the whole would increase, but not enough to cover the money lost. An average game is over 10 hours long, and your normal consumer is not going to play 3 games of 10 hour+ length in a couple weeks like they could blast through a few movies.

Games = release price at 60, goes down to 40, 30, 20, 10 over time. Movies = release in the theater and then dvd, then pay per view, then on normal, cut tv.
 
Jeff-DSA said:
That's why you would want to expand your sales of new games by dropping their price. People won't buy used and 100% of game sales dollars go towards NEW SOFTWARE. Besides, at a much cheaper price, you're going to sell a lot more copies of each game. Impulse buying would be much greater as well. Heck, why would you even rent a game at $7 when you could BUY IT NEW for $20? You probably wouldn't...

unfortunately, games will never see the type of audience that even shitty movies see within the foreseeable future. Movies also see more revenue streams with things like television licesning and cross promotion, merchandising, etc that just isnter there for games. Microtransactions is a recent example of the industry trying to create additional revenue streams like the movie industry and we all know how GAF feels about that. The truth is, movies and games are, on average, not seeing terribly different profit margins and studios have the same issue as pubs with the whole 1 in 7 (or was it more?) titles turning an actual profit. I get where you are coming from with this DVD arguement, but its just not accurate.
 
Top Bottom