Slashdot Mirror
Sony Joins the Offensive Against Pre-Owned Games
BanjoTed writes "In a move to counter sales of pre-owned games, EA recently revealed DLC perks for those who buy new copies of Mass Effect 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Now, PlayStation platform holder Sony has jumped on the bandwagon with similar plans for the PSP's SOCOM: Fireteam Bravo 3. '[Players] will need to register their game online before they are able to access the multiplayer component of the title. UMD copies will use a redeemable code while the digital version will authenticate automatically in the background. Furthermore ... anyone buying a pre-owned copy of the game will be forced to cough up $20 to obtain a code to play online."
If memory serves, isn't the PSP one of those systems it's (relatively) easy to pirate for?
I have a feeling Sony has traded getting no money from resales to getting no money because everyone's downloading a cracked version.
Doesn't look like a smart move to me after all the bad press with the sony DRM and rootkit.
Digital downloads and online registration bypasses the doctrine/right of first sale which states, essentially that copyright owners cannot control downstream sales of the product purchased. For some reason, this is more difficult to apply to computer software, most likely because of eulas being supported by the courts.
Yes, charging buyers of pre-owned games 20 bucks will show those dirty pirates. In other news, as part of my own ongoing fight against piracy I'll install self-destruct mechanisms and DRM in cars and charging 1k for every driver authentication beyond the first. Because I don't want my car analogies to be pirated. It makes perfect sense, I assure you.
Root kit?
They really are completely delusional. What benefit does this provide to the consumers that they'll react positively to? Is there even any theoretical benefit to the consumer? Maybe the research was done entirely among Sony executives.
This sentence no verb.
Given that the former owner doesn't have access to the game, wouldn't Sony be profiting off someone not using their online subscription anymore? If they want money so badly, they should require an annual subscription.
The sad thing about this is that, this has NOTHING to do with illegal distribution of games.
This has all to do with greedy corporations who keep moving towards the "software as a service" paradigm.
Nowadays, a lot of games you "buy" contain only a very small offline playing offering.
I only want a multiplayer videogame that I can play at home with my friends (at home two!). I just got the "Spyborgs" game for Wii... I haven't had so much fun in some time; it is the first "cooperative player with a history when playing both of them" I have been able to play (since I played Army of Two for PS3!).
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
I am in the position now where I don't really care about money anymore. So I tend to purchase good products because I feel like the creators deserve to be compensated.
I already avoid Sony products but now I will actively pirate your shit and help other do so as well.
FUCK YOU!
Nothing like discouraging people from wanting to buy their product -- new or used. I knew Sony was an evil empire (coming from someone that worked for them far too long), but this is just stupid.
Let me be neither the first or last to say:
Fuck you, sony and EA.
Why on earth do they do everything in their might to discourage people from buying games and instead pirating them? Im starting to believe its intentional and that for some reason the media industry think they will make more money out of lawsuits than from selling games the normal way.
HTTP/1.1 400
this is so wrong, the supreme court has ruled against this like a dozen times, why don't these companies get it?
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
Stupidity will never stop astonishing me.
and your screwed.
If you pay for it, its yours to sell forward. This applies to resale of licenses as well.
Should we try the hollywood approach here instead?
You wouldn't sell a car..
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
What's wrong with the word "used"? Are you all car dealers now?
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
I won't be pirating or renting or selling any of your games... or game systems... I won't be buying any of them either.
EA/Bioware adds little perks for people who buy the retail version of the game or preorder it even (a suit of armor, a downloadable character) that you really want to have in a game you have a strong desire to play (Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2). Sony utterly gimps your gameplay experience. I am not bothered by one (and hell think it's a good idea) guess which one that is.
So many people think that the used game market is somehow harming the new game market. They are completely wrong. Through the magic of a priori reasoning, I know that you cannot be harmed merely because you're not getting what you are not entitled.
Let me explain. Wouldn't it be awesome if your coworkers gave you a cut of their salary, for no reason whatsoever? Wouldn't it be great if you walked into a bank one day and the teller decided to give you a portion of the bank's holdings, for no reason whatsoever?
Yep, that would be awesome, no doubt about it. But are you being harmed because your coworkers and bank are not giving you money you don't deserve? Nope.
That's what's going on with the new game and used game markets. The new game industry somehow feels entitled to profits from the used game market. Despite having absolutely no legal basis for such entitlement. In the United States we have the right of first sale. What that means is that we can sell what we bought, even if what we bought was copyrighted material. So we have a right to sell our DVDs, CD, and used games.
Of course someone will say that my coworker/bank analogies fail because they don't take into consideration that the game industry created the games that the used game market is selling. If you think that, you're completely missing the point.
The fact that the game industry originally created the game is completely irrelevant to whether it is entitled to any profits from secondary or tertiary sales. It does not have such a right to profits. None whatsoever. No more than General Motors has a right to profit from the sale of the used Chevy truck you just sold. GM created the truck, does it deserve a cut from every subsequent sale? What about your house, should the contractor get a cut when you sell it, when it's sold 100 years from now? (I live in a house originally built in 1856, exactly who am I supposed to pay when I resell and move out?)
My point is, much like how you have no rights to your coworkers pay, and much like how you have no rights to your bank's holdings, the new game industry has no right to profits from the used game market. None whatsoever.
Of course the new game industry outright lies and claims that the used game market "Is profiting from the sale of our games." It's a lie because once the new game industry sells a particular copy of the game; it is no longer their game. They have absolutely no ownership right in that particular copy. So to accuse the used game market of taking or stealing their property is an outright lie.
I have no doubt that someone will argue that the new game industry is being harmed because of lost sales. I.e., consumers are buying from the used game market rather than from the new game industry which is causing the new game industry to lose money.
Let's get one thing straight: Losing sales to a competitor is not harm. It's competition.
The new game industry's claim that it's being harmed from the used game market is as asinine as McDonalds claiming it is being harmed by Burger King.
Now certainly if Burger King was unfairly or illegally competing, for example, if Burger King ignored health and safety laws to keep their prices lower, in that circumstance one could argue that McDonalds would be harmed by the unfair and illegal competition.
But in this instance there is no illegality or unfairness in the used game market. It's not illegal for consumers to resell their games. It's not unfair to price those used games lower because the products are necessarily inferior to the new ones.
If your industry is somehow being harmed by perfectly legal and fair competition, then it's about time change careers because you have a complete misunderstanding about how capitalism is supposed to work. You are not entitled to someone else's profits, merely because you want them. Get over it.
Unfortunately, this is exactly why the new game industry is having laws passed to make it more difficult to sell used games. Despite what corporations say, they don't really want to compete in a free market, they want the government to bend over and protect them from legal competition.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
...and Sony are the pirates, "sealing" from people legitimately buy the game second-hand.
A company can do whatever the hell it wants! Nobody forces you to buy these games after all. Between bong hits, you hippies whine that policies like this lead to decreased consumer choice, greater entrenchment of established players, less innovation, and price increases across the board. So what? That's just too bad. The right of a corporation to do anything it wants it spelled out in the Book of Job. If a corporation does it, that makes it right.
Still whining, huh? Are you a successful executive? No? When what business do you have talking about anything, loser? Don't like it? Go read a book, or move to a France, or preferably, impress your boss by putting in 12 hours at work tomorrow instead of the expected 10.
I used to be a fan of my C64 games as a kid and I loved playing PC games for years. So much in fact I tried breaking into game development and ran the local IGDA chpater for some years. My heart is still with games and I think they are a wonderful extension to the artforms of literature, cinema and storytelling. When I see how the game dev industry treats its customers these days, I really get the feeling they are way beyond stretching their welcome. Games (especially console games) are so icredibly overpriced and lacking of creativity and intellectual depth that I wonder why gamers are still interested in buying/playing them. I haven't upgraded my gaming pc for almost 8 years now and I only have a Wii because my wife like the balance board games (and admittedly I love being her audience). The only games I occassionaly play are the really old ones, like Civ II/III Baldur's Gate stuff, the good old Sierra point and clicks (Larry, 2D King Quest) because of the humor and fun in these games. Also I really love firing up the C64 emulator for a quick round of classics. When will they stop squeezing customers for every penny and drop the incredible graphics/hardware performance race that has been polluting the game content for the past decade. I don't give a damn about 3D performnace or yet another FPS, come up with something new, interesting exciting. Something that doesn't insult my intelligence and challenges and entertains me in a more subtle way. Dear Douglas Adams I miss you, you were well on your way to solve this problem but you passed too soon. Oh god, is no one going to change this rotten game dev industry we're having? Perhaps I'm just an old fool blabbering about the lost good old days, but doesn't anyone agree that it's not supposed to be like this? *sigh*
We used to buy a silver disk and it contained a game. As long there was an active userbase playing it, you would have multiplayer. Otherwise, you'd organize a night of multiplayer gaming with friends or play single player mode. But the game was yours to play.
If I look at it, the games industry is evolving to a SaaS-model; you pay a subscription fee on a games base and when you stop paying you are denied access.
it wouldn't surprice me, with latest Nvidea's realtime rendering farm et al, we'd soon have a subscribers base "gamers account", where you can pay monthly for "casual gaming", a more expensive "regular gaming"-account or "extreme all the latest games at fuckplenty fps"-account giving you access to certain titles/types of games which you can play realtime over wire.
Gaming like we've known before, on brown or silver disks, seems to be phasing out forever.
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
basically this is what they are saying you.
Read radical news here
First it was a couple nonessential gear items, now it's the entire multiplayer component. They're taking not-so-baby-steps toward a world where when you buy the game you get a one-time code to activate the whole thing, and reselling the physical media is pointless because the game simply won't function without another code.
I guess since the last game console I bought was a Magnavox Odyssey, this really doesn't affect me directly.
I don't buy a Sony TV because of my past experiences with Sony's car radios etc. The whole DRM thing is useful to tell the good ones from the bad ones.
Having such cool products.... I wonder if they fully appreciate what they're doing to their brand.
I just don't give a damn about the DLC. I played Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 all the way through without even noticing the little DLC registration cards in the box (typically those are just advertisements) until someone mentioned them. Both games were good and complete. The presence of free-if-you-buy-it-from-us DLC isn't going to motivate me to ignore a used game if it is available. What pisses me off is in-game advertisements for DLC. Every time you go back to camp in DAO some asshole is standing in the back with a bright yellow exclamation mark saying "Buy the DLC for my quest!". No, asshole, if you don't represent a playable part of my game, get the fuck out. I'm afraid we'll see a lot more of this sort of thing in the future, as our (more profitable than ever) game companies continue to morph into greedy bastards like the rest of the entertainment industry.
It may not be as bad as it sounds. They are just selling two distinct goods: the software for the game and the multiplayer service. Reselling the game should mean the reselling of both. Thus, you register with generic or false information (assuming they aren't nuts and ask for a CC or SS for something you already paid for) and when selling the game, you sell the disk and the code.
I personally am against any corporations policy that limit the resale of of products that require a high upfront fee. As mentioned above, we need to draw a defining line between product purchases and subscriptions. I feel deceived when a purchase a software boxed set and discover that I only have a right to use the product, not transfer ownership.
For example, I bought a Rosetta Stone boxed language set and discovered that I only have the right to use the product and am barred from reselling it. They control this by requiring each user to register online.
I would be happy to pay a monthly subscription, but, resent paying the entire fee upfront. The upfront fee requires me to take all the risk. If I don't use the product, then I get no value and cannot recoup my costs. Under a subscription model, I pay an initiation fee plus a monthly subscription. The company gets an up front fee for providing the product, but we share the risk. I pay only for the value I receive.
I like the TiVo model the best. I pay a monthly subscription fee, but have the option of purchasing a life time subscription. The life time subscription is permanent and can be transferred with the TiVo device. That way I have a choice of an upfront transferable versus low monthly subscription fee.
I thought it was just one big movie you had to watch.
-- Mike Keryeski
http://freemp3players.fasturl.us
I may be overly cynical, but I think the talk of piracy while eroding / bypassing every consumer protection law under the sun is more for political reasons than to reassure their customers. They want to cover their asses in advance of the inevitable EFF lawsuits. If they lose any of those, they'll lobby for new laws.
Yes, charging buyers of pre-owned games 20 bucks will show those dirty pirates.
And sure, all the people who get their games from Pirate Bay are VERY likely to notice what happens to regular buyers~
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
but seriously Sony, I speak on behalf of everyone who waits a couple of months to pick up the games at less than half price in the bargain bin because I can't drop $100 (AU) on a game straight up, when I say a big "Fuck You".
This will be awful for call centre workers
I don't mind so much if Sony charges me to use their servers
But I do mind if Sony pulls the plug on the server just before the tournament that we planned out on a forum, or if Sony pulls the plug before I even break the shrinkwrap on a new-in-box game (which has happened to me twice).
Piracy is the better choice. It's been said before, but apparently it hasn't gotten old yet.
This is a cycle, and I'm stuck in it. When the PS3 came out, first I waited simply because I wanted to be sure the platform took off. I eventually said to myself "It's going well, as soon as they drop the price I'll buy one." Well, they not only dropped the price, they dropped the emotion chip. ...so I didn't buy it. Later they were to drop the price, and they dropped the Emotion chip EMULATOR TOO, then Linux boot support, now they're dropping my ability to get good value on resale of games (since that $20 is getting passed to the consumer, my game is not $20 less valuable at resale, especially since most used games I BUY are only $20 or less, that's a huge hit). I was all set, finally just willing to admit there were few enough PS2 games I have that I'd actualyl play it was worth just keeping the PS2 slim i have around to play them, and I was going to buy a PS3 this summer when the price inevitably dropped again.
Sorry Sony, your screwed yourselves again. I'll just buy another PC based game or two, maybe a new Vid Card.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
It is possible, but it is also possilbe that they will use some unique identifier associated with your XBox instead.
END COMMUNICATION
If your that upset over where on-line games are going like this then stop crying and start building your own. Honestly, these companies didn't start out all big and fancy. They started out in a garage or a campus lab or some basement or something. Start creating instead of just consuming, you might make a hit that way and blow their lock-ins out of the water.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
Honestly EA's free DLC for new only is only fluf. the freebies they give you for ME2 are a joke and useless compared to other gear in the game it's nothing you need to finish the game and honestly only gives you a leg up for the first hour of playing (the black hole gun will actually screw you if you use it instead of the grenade launcher.) and the cerebus network is 100% useless.
free DLC is typically junk that only impresses people for a very short time.. like the crap free DLC that Dr Pepper is giving away.
Taking away the ability to play online? that's simply screwing people and disabling a big part of the game.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I don't know if that's how it is for games yet, but doesn't the agreement you have to click through to use just about any software nowadays basically say that you don't own the software, you are merely leasing the right to use (play) it?
If that's how the licenses on these games read, all this talk of first-sale rights and such becomes irrelevant.
You know, I don't think I will be bothered by all this restrictions on pre-owned games, and for that matter DRM, registration, mandatory network connections etc. It seems to me that the games that get the "We need to get every penny possible out of this" focus from the publishers are the types of games that IMO suck. Personally I don't get all that bothered by it since, with a few exceptions, I am really sick of the Madden *Insert Year Here*, Generic Space Marine Kills a Ton of Aliens, or Overly Bloody FPS games that every one is making these days. I am sure that some of them are actually a quality product, but until the video game industry gets its creativity and soul back, I wont be sending much of my money their way.
I want my SNES/Gensis glory days back damn-it!
Yeah, I've got nothing...
"... anyone buying a pre-owned copy of the game will be forced to cough up $20 to obtain a code to play online."
The only thing I'm coughing up is a hairball.
--
I wanna be anarchy
It is all about not giving any choice to user/loser when bending him over.
The more platform is open, the less room they have to pull stunts like this.
new PS3 game $59.99 (+DLC, typically $5.99, $9.99, $14.99)
when done, sell it and get $15 from gamestop
net cost $45 (51,55,60)
buy a used PS3 game $54.99 (+ $20 penalty)(+DLC, typically $5.99, $9.99, $14.99)
when done, sell it and get $1 from gamestop
net cost $74 (80,84,99)
hrmmm
I find it so weird that these companies aren't forward thinking enough to see how the used game market HUGELY benefits them. A few scenarios:
1) Gamer - A gamer is probably going to buy all the titles they're excited about at launch. They'll then buy the titles they wanted to play, but could wait for, used. Low and behold, they really liked this title they bought used. They go back and buy all the downloadable content. They're actually excited about the sequel and buy it brand new. And probably buy the downloadable content for it as well. And if they didn't care for it, whatever. THESE are the people who are keeping the industry and niche markets afloat to begin with.
2) Casual Gamer - This is the guy who's probably only interested in the big, flagship titles. Give him the newest Mario, Halo, Madden etc. and he's set. He's probably buying a few games a year and they're probably going to be new from the store. He'll probably borrow games before he buys a lot of used ones. Will probably buy some of the older games that came out before he got his system used. He's kept EA afloat for years buying the newest Madden game.
3) Kids - This is the crowd that really chews through the used games. Mom and dad take the kids shopping and the kids want a game. Mom says "pick out something under $10/$20." They end up getting some terrible game used that probably shouldn't have ever been bought new to begin with. Like it or not, besides birthdays and Christmas this is the only way these kids are ever going to get games to play. Mom and dad can't afford $60 a pop. Kids don't care that it's new, just that it seems cool. The industry makes very little off of kids, but these kids get older and get jobs and they become the new gamers and casual gamers.
4) The Mooch - Just be glad this guy even bothers buying used games. At least that stimulates the economy. Would probably be just as happy to download games and play them with a mod chip. You're not going to convert this guy. Don't waste your time.
Like the old adage says, "Any press is good press" and I think this is how the industry should look at used games. People buying used games are buying advertisement that will entice them to buy future games in the series and other games from the developer. The more games people play, the more people like games and the more games they buy. And, regardless if the game is bought new or used, there is still money to be made off of the DLC. It's not news that Sony wants, very badly, to turn the game industry into a cloud market. You buy the game and basically play it through the internet. You own no physical item, just the entitlement to play the game. All this will do is thwart people from buying nothing but the top tier games.
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
Why should Gamestop and others sell a used game for 95% of the cost of a new game and have no overhead because of it? That is where the evil is, they rip off the consumer when they trade games in for little cash or credit then jack up the used game to high profit levels. Sony should charge $40 to get the game to play online again, not $20. Fuck them all.
If your so against how sony does business then put your money where your mouth is.
Slashdot should start up a fund to buy Sony stock. Also people could buy stock on their own and pledge to back up Slashdot in the boardroom if or when you had enough shares to have a voice at the stockholders meetings.
Just buy a share here and there and pledge to back a DRM Free Sony
As usual, vote with your wallet and refuse to purchase any game with this "feature".
Seriously, it is "used." I have no idea why used has become a dirty word. "Pre-owned" is a BS term, that is more complex than it needs to be. Used is fine.
This is easily solvable, and with little effort on the software vendor's part.
Allow the game code to be *gasp* un-registered.
There... The game won't play on the computer you are removing it from, and the code is now clean for the new owner.
Of course, that would make too much sense, and would require a class action lawsuit to force the companies to do it, even though it would actually make the game industry compliant with first sale doctrine.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
I can't believe you and at least three other people took my comment seriously. I thought the satire was clear. I was wrong. It really reflects terribly on our society that you could read the bible reference and the "10 hour workday" and think I meant those things in earnest. Only monsters like this man would do that.
Moderators, just moderate my original comment down to -1. I'd rather see it there than at +5 Insightful where someone might get the impression that corporate feudalism is a good thing.
The inability to use online multiplayer unless you are the original purchaser is pretty ludicrous. Video game companies claim that they lose money by consumers purchasing used games. This may be true to some extent, but those used games had to be purchased new at some point. And what about games that have been out of print for long periods of time? Why should I be penalized for that?
To be fair to Mass Effect 2, however, the "Cerberus Network" registration code that you receive with an original game copy only gives you three free DLC packs; it does not break half the game as Sony does in TFA. You can still play ME2 without registering the game; you simply do not have access to DLC (most of which has sucked thus far). It remains to be seen if purchasing DLC requires registration.
I have a bad feeling about this...
This made me think if this system was applied to any media, like television series or movies. Imagine a day you buy the whole series on dvd but it's only authorized to be viewed by you (technical details aside). Currently we have rental systems in place like Netflix that in a way, offer you the content for less on a borrowed nature.
Gamefly does this for games, will they be able to offer these games for rent? I assume not with this DRM but should they be able to? When I rent this online game I'm allowed to play it for only as long as I have it.. then when i send it back to the company they can rent it out to another individual to play online? It would be interesting if they're able to work out a temporary pass syetm with the publisher (this user is allowed to use this code until the disc is returned and then that code is revoked). If I were Gamefly I'd start looking at that now... since this system propogating would eventually destroy their business.
Look at the bright side, this is great news for people who only play single player and only buy used. Used copies of this game willl have to be at least $20 less than new or new would actually be a better deal! Well done Sony, you've just reduced the cost of used games!
do you think what will happen if this 'right to use' bullshit takes hold ? what if all service and goods providers take up on it and you end up buying your car as 'right to use' only ?
there is NOTHING preventing any business from selling their products and services with these type of contracts that will make you only 'own the right to use'. (whatever the fuck that is, since it can be so easily redefined by the provider)
you need to stop buying into this exploitative crap. if you buy a copy of a piece of software, you OWN THAT COPY and you can resell THAT COPY. thats why the term is 'copyright'. it means you can own a book, and give out or resell a book, but you can not COPY it and reproduce it. that was how the term copyright was created and used since last 300 or so years.
no half assed digital company has the right to 'redefine' terms to the detriment of people.
Read radical news here
They feel the need to screw their customers, and I feel the need not to buy their products.
Shine on, Sony. Shine on.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
ME 2!!!1!
So how long until they decide the used market as a whole is profiting from their products? I mean, why are they only targeting video games when they could go after Blu-rays, DVDs, CDs and all the various hardware as well? This may be the beginning of dark times for the entertainment market...
Over-hyped mass produced games a long time ago. Guess what Sony, if you're selling less copy it's not because of "piracy", it's because I'm busy playing games like Falcon 4.0 (yeah, 10 years after release), Hearts of Iron 2 (yeah, also 5+ years old), Magestorm (also 10+ years old), etc. Your old business model sucked, and your new one sucks even more. Good luck. You'll need it.
Okay dudes, I think everyone has had their fun. The real truth is no one is going to be playing SOCOM regardless of anything.
It may not be as much about pre-owned games as rentals. I suspect this may an attempt to regain revenue from the rental stream, such as gamefly.
and it took me only 5 hrs to complete. If HMV gives me 40% or more of the mkt price I'll be more than happy to bring it back to them.
Sorry SONY but I don't give a cr*p when in first instance your games cost 50 GBP!!!! If I can have a little return/buy them at lower price, as in a real market scr*w you!
Ciao!
the used sales are more like 25-30% of all sales. The current state of the used game market is really unfortunate for the publishers; cheap gamers try to save $5 by giving their money to Gamestop instead of the people who actually make games. They also sell their used games back to Gamestop making it possible for Gamestop to resell them to someone else, who (if they did not have that option) would likely have paid the extra $5 and bought a copy from the publisher for $60+.
Basically, Gamestop and other parasitic businesses are diverting away a large chunk of the money that the publishers need to pay their development teams to develop new games. You can rant about "right of first sale" and "I bought it, I own it" as much as you want. The fact is, games are *packaged experiences* that don't naturally degrade when used. (Unlike, say, a movie ticket that can only be used once). Considering that most games are good for 20+ hours of entertainment, compared to a movie which is good for maybe 2 hours of entertainment.. you actually get good value for your money.
But buying your games from Gamestop is analogous to buying used DVDs from your friend instead of buying the movie new. You get your movie, but the studios get nothing. Decent AAA games now cost $20-50 million dollars to make. Guess how many copies the publisher has to sell to recoup those development costs? Thats right, a lot of them. Gamestop is leeching away 20-30% of their potential sales, that is a big deal for the publishers, and thats why they're trying to fight it with these DLC and online tying efforts.
Lets get this straight here
When you buy the retail game, you get the code for infrastructure play with it, no additional charge.
Buy used, the code is tied to the previous users account, so you need a new one.
But....you only need the code for infrastructure, ad hoc play isn't tied to it. And since SCEfoo has released ad hoc party for the PS3, you can still play online with a used copy, but only via ad hoc party on a PS3, so you're cut out of the usual SOCOM game community.
So long as Sony is upfront about its policy (which may be in question given it is Sony) who cares.
There is a very easy solution. Vote with your wallet. Don't buy the game. If you feeling really pissed, don't buy Sony products. They will get the message eventually, or if they don't they won't be around much longer.
It really is that simple.
However if they "trick" people into buying their products, and then once it is too late announce that "Oh BTW that thing you just bought is now crippled by this DRM, you must be online or register online, etc... to actually play our game". That would piss me off to the point where I would be demanding my money back.
But I own a company and I can't do whatever I want. The size of the company is what matters not the company in itself. Large companies give LARGE campain contributions and so our goverment does whatever they are told in exchange for the money to get elected. So in short the large companies own the government. Has nothing to do with hippies.
I'm no economist but doesn't this constitute a lack of understanding of how their market works? These attacks on the used game market seem to be based on a logic that if the used game market didn't exist, people would buy the same stuff new at higher prices. But that only works if customers have infinite amounts of money and a burning need to buy *that particular item* and no other, surely? In which case they just need to shake the customers a bit harder and the money will fall out. But people are actually buying this stuff on a limited budget, so if you force people to "buy new or not at all" they might just chose not to buy! Also, as others have noted, part of the value of an item you buy is that you can resell. If you can't resell then the value to you is reduced, so these games ought to cost less - if they don't then you're getting a worse deal than before, potentially balancing out any free DLC that might have been bundled.
There's a bigger problem of interacting markets though. You can trade in games in order to help finance the purchase of new games. Maybe you can't afford that new game that just came out but if you could trade in a couple of titles you're bored of you might *just* be able to stretch your budget a little and get it. If the used games market disappeared there'd be no trade in and you wouldn't have made that new purchase at all. Used games also help attract people into shops where they may buy other titles. And people will take a risk on a used title and maybe get into a series.
Examples:
* I've bought a few games used that didn't get such good reviews and enjoyed them because I knew I hadn't wasted money. I might trade those in to buy a new title I really want, rather than waiting for lower prices / sales.
* I bought Halo: CE used, Halo 3 on heavy discount (but new), Halo 2 used. Loved Halo. Bought Halo Wars and Halo 3: ODST new very soon after they came out because the cheap copies of the earlier games had got me interested. I'll probably pre-order Reach because I'm confident in its quality and want to get it as soon as possible.
* I bought Mirror's Edge used. Part of the reason I bought it was because it was inexpensive. I loved it and will probably buy the sequel new as long as it has decent reviews.
If you eliminate the second hand market I would have been disinclined to risk trying new series that I might not like, so I might never have become early buyers of the future releases. I might also be more wary of new purchases that I could not trade in, although to be fair I'm usually quite careful about selecting ones I'll want to keep when I do buy new.
Rather than trying to undermine the used market, publishers ought to realise that - unpalatable as it is - their customers do not have unlimited money to spend on their games so the used market is an important part of the ecosystem that keeps their sales going and keeps the games market overall healthy. If they want to sell more new games all they have to do is make games that people can't wait to play; if people are thinking "meh, I'll buy that later" then it's because their customers don't place that high a value on the game. That's either because they don't have the money (so it's not a lost sale) or they're not interested (you need to make better games and / or allow them to get into a series cheaply, maybe through used sales!).
Even regular people will get fed up with all the DRM and limitations that game companies keep pushing forward.
Oh look, MAME and over three decades of games we can run for FUCKING FREE!
Have fun, EA, Sony, Blizzard and all the other screwballs out there!
Sony has dabbled in a few download only titles for the PSP, with empty boxes with codes at various retailers.
Why didn't they do that here? It seems as if the backlash would be less.
Twenty dollars only to sign up? Haven't they learned anything? They should be charging $20 every time you play.
/sarcasm
These aren't "similar plans." There's a huge difference between perks for new buyers and punishment for used buyers.
I am afraid that resale for console games is a doomed concept. Given the increases in hard drive capacity and broadband speed, it has become very easy to offer a game for online sale. As the percentage of gamers who have these resources continues to grow, we will reach a tipping point where it makes sense to offer a full game for sale online only. (This is already the case for small console games, but is generally not true yet for full-sized games which retail for over $50.)
People will fight against this and resist it, but when push comes to shove, if the game is desirable enough it will sell. The rules of competition only apply to a certain extent. If one restaurant overcharges for a burger, you can go to another restaurant. If a company sells Halo 7 under unfavorable terms, you either accept it or you don't play that particular game.
Once a few high-profile games establish the profitability of this scheme, it won't take long for all the major companies to switch over to this model (much to the chagrin of physical retailers, who will be reduced to selling access codes rather than physical products, until they go out of business.)
I would object to this practice based on the first sale doctrine. If they want to distribute games this way, they should have to provide a mechanism for transfer of ownership. However, recent legal proceedings seem to uphold the "pretend it's not a sale" doctrine, which states that you can use trick language to call the transaction a license or a subscription, even though the purchaser is thinking of it as a sale in his mind.
This all makes me disappointed, as I enjoy getting used games at a bargain, or occasionally buying a new one and then reselling it after beating the game. I can't see myself being too excited about paying $60 for a full game, and so it will become a rare transaction. I hope that I'm wrong somehow, but it just seems inevitable.
"anyone buying a pre-owned copy of the game will be forced to cough up $20 to obtain a code to play online." The majority of gamestop customers is 15 yr olds without credit cards. I doubt this will work. Meanwhile an adult like me will just wait until the game is on sale for 20 bucks after it has been out a year.
http://wwww.zerospeaks.com
Wtf is wrong with the gaming industry? First Ubisoft closing down servers for relatively new games, then their crappy DRM. Now Sony and EA cracking down on things they haven't, and shouldn't mind. If they want to get rewards for their games, which are fantastic, don't you think that they should let people play them? It seems that the era of plug in and play games has ended.
</Rant>
Please add the tag "secondsale". Why? Because thats the ONLY way Sony will get money from my family. Because when the USED game drops to $10 or so in the bargin bin at GameStop, and the new add on BS drops to $5 or FREE is the only way any company that pulls this will get my money for a PS3 or Xbox360 title. I now understand pirates who create serial crack programs so much better, and the ones who will soon create a "always online spoof" program. Withoutadoubt someone somewhere is pissed off right about now and hard at work on both.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your politician, and hitting them?"
I don't see how this is the same bandwagon - it seems to me like they are completely opposite approaches. EA is rewarding people who buy new copies, while Sony is punishing people who buy second-hand.
What Sony forgets is that the majority of games that I buy used are stuff that I would never--- EVER--- have bought new. I paid like $3 for a copy of Disaster Report for the PS2. Would I have paid $20 for that? Hell no. The benefit you get from buying a game new as opposed to used are that it'll be in perfect condition, and you'll be one of the first people to be playing it. If you want it used--- and cheap--- you're going to be waiting 6 months to a year. (I'm not talking the difference between getting a game for $40 at GameStop as opposed to $50 brand new)
No portion of this post may be rebroadcast without the express, written consent of Major League Baseball.
Free DLC should be considered an added perk for buying the game, not something that should be taken for granted. Steam is doing far more damage to the second hand market than EA can do at the moment.
Any multiplayer game that requires a login to play (going as far back as Diablo II or Neverwinter Nights) would have also had this restriction, meaning the seller would need to give up his Battle.net, Bioware ID, etc... for the new buyer to be able to play online.
I am all against restricted copy protection and DRM. EA have always been fairly rubbish at supporting their own games anyway. Free DLC should be considered a step in the right direction.
Because when you play same screen co-op [in Champions of Norrath] you have to stay together, and when one person pulls up the inventory the other player can do nothing except look at their inventory themselves if they want.
Then Champions of Norrath has a defect, not the whole concept of same-screen co-op. Multiplayer in Goldeneye 007 (that was 240p, mind you, not even 480i) wouldn't pause the game when one player went into its counterpart to the inventory screen, but only when the player actually chose "pause" on that screen.
Splitscreen is for after-school kid gamers, not adults for whom it's more difficult to schedule gaming sessions.
Online is fine for turn-based games such as Go or Chess or Pokemon or Civ, but not all real-time video game genres work well over a connection whose latency is typical of home Internet connections. Ordinarily, a net game predicts where the other player's character will be, but it usually predicts wrong, and the game has to re-simulate the world from the difference to the current time, causing disorienting cuts from old timelines to new ones. How can a game reliably predict when the other player is going to throw a punch or fire a weapon? Specifically, I've been told the online play in fighting games such as Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Street Fighter IV is unsatisfying.
One thing that angers me, is how they want the benefits of selling a physical item and a license.
Do you want to sell me a license? Fine. Then I want to be able to archive my software any way I want so that I can use my license which you sold me long after your crappy software medium fails me. Why is my license even tied to something like a product key? Do I forfeit my right to the license I bought because your sticker wore off? Or because I forgot my key? Or because your company went under and your validation servers are offline? Do I forfeit my license because your disc broke? Why wont you replace the disc at cost. I bought the license already!!! I don't need to buy another license! What am I going to do with two licenses?
Do you want to sell me something instead of licensing it? No, you don't. So there isnt even any reason to bring up the hypothetical.
One last thing: Sometimes I wonder; "Is that someone's signature? Or do they type that at the end of each post?"
Isn't this proposed Sony model closer to the way Blizzard and friends work their MMOs. If I buy a copy of WoW, I can't resell it. The copy I bought is tied to my account even after my account is cancelled. You can't legally sell your account (which is argubly what you were paying for in the first place) because it is against their ToS. I'm not saying that I agree with Sony. I think it's like trying to squeeze blood from a stone when they should instead be innovating and developing new ideas, but I'm suprised that everyone is so angered by a model that has been around for a while.
I consider myself a pretty avid gamer. Games are my hobby, that's what I do when I'm not at school or work... I like to play games for their story, games like Modern Warfare 2, and other games with a high online population. I'm not much for player versus player, I don't like how people treat each other online, and to be perfectly honest, I'm terrible at facing other people in games.
But it makes me wonder... if Sony were to follow in the footsteps with what the other guys did with DRM (Making you pay ~$20-30 for a new code to play online), I wonder if this would drive down the cost of used games? I know for a fact, at least with GameStop, that fairly new games (ei: games that came out within the past 3 months or so), GameStop will buy these games off of you for like $30 store credit (No idea what they give you in cash, but its far less), and they will go and resell the game for about $5-10 off the New sticker price. (It's a pretty good business plan really: They get $60 off you, you finish the game, you sell it back to them at half of what you paid, $30, they make $30 still and they can go and resell it for another $50 or so! note: I'm not taking into consideration tax, or how much they actually buy each individual game for in mass)
I guess what I am hoping here is that games that require a "New Code" to play online will be cheaper in re-retail because no one is going to pay ~$45-55 for a used copy of a game if they can buy that same exact game for $60 and save a few bucks (At least that's how my mind works...).
Why stop there when these companies could just sell the game engine alone on discs for $9.95 in a jewel case, then sell the user the content entirely as DLC subject to the "no refunds" policy at $40 as a form of "activation"? That way, if anyone rushes to buy the next big title of the season for $10, then decides they don't like it, the most they could get back is the $9.95, while the game manufacturers get to pocket the remaining $40 each time some poor sucker gets handed the same disc the manufacturer repackages over and over...
8==8 Bones 8==8
Remember, the new iMesh Inc. is a puppet of Sony, with the sole purpose of taking over P2P.
The brainchild of the current Sony Records head, iMesh's CEO is the last Sony head, and they regularly have meetings at Sony's corporate HQ in New York.
So Shareaza is open source? No Problem, sue the unrelated domain holder for millions, then Trademark it with lies, and threaten to destroy the lives of developers if they dispute.
After actually being the lead on 30000+ RIAA/etc lawsuits against their own customers. And having be shown to use actual 'pirated' software routinely company-wide.
Yeah, with 'intellectual property' hypocrisy like that, Sony sure is entitled to your money.
Oh, and the president of the Sony movie business thinks we should just shut down the Internet because it's inconvenient to his monopoly.
As some may recall Mark Rein, from Epic Games, had a hard-on for bitching about used games for awhile. Most every publisher if tired sequels has done too.
We like to talk about how big gaming is but if it's so big and well accepted now then how come they can't handle used sales like movies, books and music?
Why do they often need to make employees work long loads of overtime for free?
Why do prices have to keep increasing despite using cheaper media and having more customers?
I really do like gaming but I don't think it's any surprise I play old games only new games from very specific publishers. I think in general gaming has jumped right into that area pop music is now and in general they just churn out shit people don't value. They play it because it's something to do but they don't really value it because they know it's shit.
Neato, so they're busy waving around a copy of the law, and / or bragging about it? :)
From Merriam-Webster:
<----------
Main Entry: flaunt
Function: verb
Etymology: perhaps of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse flana to rush around
Date: 1566
intransitive verb
1 : to display or obtrude oneself to public notice <a great flaunting crowd — Charles Dickens>
2 : to wave or flutter showily <the flag flaunts in the breeze>
transitive verb
1 : to display ostentatiously or impudently : parade <flaunting his superiority>
2 : to treat contemptuously <flaunted the rules — Louis Untermeyer> (see note)
synonyms see show
---------->
The word you're looking for here is flout:
<----------
Main Entry: flout
Function: verb
Etymology: probably from Middle English flouten to play the flute, from floute flute
Date: 1551
transitive verb
: to treat with contemptuous disregard : scorn <flouting the rules>
intransitive verb
: to indulge in scornful behavior
synonyms see scoff
---------->
Note: It seems enough folks have confused flout and flaunt that the two are increasingly conflated, as noted in the second transitive definition for flaunt above. M-W includes a usage note at the bottom of the entry for flaunt describing this. (However, it's also worth noting that some of their examples as given indicate possible confusion by M-W's own editorial staff.)
One possibly useful mnemonic is to think of flaunt as a flag waving, and to think of flout as getting out of something.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
If you don't like what a game corporation is doing then start supporting, contributing, and using open source games. It's not like there isn't plenty of them out there. This shit would go away if the market disappears. Damn whining babies and spoiled brats.
Companies like Valve and Apple have been doing this for years. I can't resell the games I buy through Steam or the Apple App Store, and I can't get them used.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
If you are behind a proxy or firewall you are s-o-l With EA's DLC. They don't use standard ports they use proprietary ports that you'd have to analyze and adapt for on a per-vendor or per-game basis. It's pretty sucky.
...I'll be glad to wait until the prices on these games drop into the sub-$30 range. If that means waiting two years to play a decent game instead of being able to trade games in to get it at a decent price on release day, that's more than fine by me. And if the publishers are willing to punish me for buying or selling their games used, I'm willing to hold my money back from them until the "Game of the year" editions with all the special content included come out for a lower price. I can only see this hurting the publishers and Sony in the very near future.
No more free market? Way to go, guys.
I am not devoid of humor.
Splitscreen is for after-school kid gamers, not adults
PC games that aren't rated M are "for after-school kid gamers". Why don't they support multiple gamepads?
You can't stop stupid people from doing stupid things, that is why they are stupid.
Though I do understand the plight of Parents.
However there has always been, and likely always will be people trying to swindle or make a quick buck off the foolishness of others. Just bececause they have a "trusted" brand name like Sony don't make them exempt. They spent a lot of moneny on that "brand name" for that express purpose, to give consumers the idea that they are honest brokers.
You only have to look as far as the slimy infomercials on TV selling pills to make you thin, strong, more verile or perhaps get rich quick schemes by the hundred, etc... These things make money, otherwise they wouldn't be in buisness. They prey on the ininformed, the stupid, the elderly, the desprete, and make wild promises that can never be fullfiled.
I think it is sad that people can and would do this to other people, but that is how it is. Someoe said that "a sucker is born every minute", and really that just translates into "market demographic" for many companies.
As I mentioned before Sony will figure it out or go the way of the dodo, as doing this sort of stuff WILL hurt their "Brand Name". Piss off enough parents and over time when it comes time to buy that brand new TV they might think "these are the assholes I bought that useless game for my kid, screw me once shame on you, screw me twice shame on me." The sad thing, is it will take time for this to happen, so in the short term, people get screwed.
1) Pre is inappropriate for verbs
2) Pre means chronologically before, so pre-owned would mean before owned, NOT owned before. Which would mean that it was never owned. We have a term for a product no one has owned... NEW.
3) We have a term for something someone has used... USED.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!