Slashdot Mirror
Used Game Penalty Escalates With SOCOM 4
Technologizer reports on this unwelcome development for used game buyers:
"SOCOM 4: US Navy Seals charts a new course in punishing used game buyers, and it’s at once better and worse than the status quo of $10 online passes. As described on the official Playstation Blog, SOCOM 4 will let all players access the game’s multiplayer portion — as it should, because online play has always been SOCOM’s main attraction — but used game buyers will miss out on special guns, game types, and other perks to be added later. To get these features with a used copy of the game, you’ll have to buy a $15 activation code. Sony’s spinning this bundle of features, dubbed 'SOCOM Pro,' as an enhancement for new game buyers, rather than a drawback for used copies. It’s semantics, sure, but it’s also the direction in which these used game restrictions should be going."
And they will get exactly 0 of my dollars. I once supported the shit out of sony but as of late they lose it all.
How is this any different than PC games that have CD keys that you need to install, and that you key in when you register them? How is this any different than me selling my MMO CDs to a friend and then laughing when he can not get online?
The game basically is giving you access to an online profile, that when you sell off the disk, if you want your own new online profile, you have to pay $15 for.
How is this any different than just about every other game with online components? Ten years ago if I wanted to sign into Nova World with a used version of the game, it would have already been registered with that CD key. How is this any different?
I'm still not quite sure why a used game buyer shouldn't
be allowed the same benefits as a new game buyer,
but in order to come to a resolution a suggestion has
to eventually be accepted. This is a descent step to
something that is acceptable.
-AI
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
"it’s also the direction in which these used game restrictions should be going."
So how much will you pay for the used game knowing you still have to pay another $15 for the content? Not much.
How about when they decide it isn't enough and want $20?
It effectively destroys the second hand value and they know it.
I've been watching the cost of videogame development over the past ten years, and the simple fact is that videogames cost much, much more to develop this generation than they did in the previous. Whereas a top-tier game in the previous generation may have cost $10 million, their costs for this generation can go as far as $100 million (see: Grand Theft Auto IV). Not only that, but we are missing a PS2 analogue in terms of market dominance this generation, with the overall market fragmented between the Wii (which third parties refused to devote any serious attention to), and the PS3/360. So when you have a pie that's smaller than it's been in the past, and it costs a lot more to get a slice of that pie, the only remaining solution is to raise prices, one way or another. Game prices already rose $10 a copy at the beginning of the generation, and DLC is just another way to recoup costs.
We are facing a generation where the majority of game developers are facing record losses in the face of record revenues, and a single bomb can spell the end of a company. This is not a climate to take risks in, and unfortunately, without risk taking and innovation, the overall market will only continue to shrink. Unfortunately, there seems to be no easy way to address the underlying problem, so I predict we will see more and more of these cases as time goes on, and the march of progress brings with it ever costlier development bills.
...stupidly bought given Sony's track record, has been for some time relegated to an overpriced BluRay and DVD player.
And I still kick myself for buying it even for the BluRay part.
Damn Sony. Your consoles are overpriced. You've reduced their features of the new ones. You've even reduced the features of older models after purchase. And now you're screwing over gamers who buy legitimate but used games? What do you think is going to happen? People are going to hack their PS3s, pirate games, or, most importantly, go elsewhere. $15 is $15 I can spend buying a Wii game or on Xbox Live.
The SOCOM developers, publishers, and you all already received their cut fairly and fully on the FIRST sale of the game. Now you want to double dip? There's no difference between a buyer who bought the game legit the first round and plays it for one year, and someone who plays it for 6 months, sells it to another person, who plays it for another 6 months. What gives.
Maybe I should buy an ipad. Hate Apple too, but at least they don't seem to be screwing customers over wholeheartedly.
Come on. Who would pay GM to 'unlock' a car stereo system when you just purchased a pre-owned car? Nobody should be putting up with this shit!
and with all the crap sony is pulling suing people and hobbling the ps3 why would you?
This sort of thing was discussed recently in the Extra credits (a weekly publication? on The escapist). They purposed that instead of trying to punish used game purchasers while trying to cut out game stop they should encourage them. Sell the game new for twenty bucks, with multi player on the disk but not accessible because hey it's just convenient. Then Sell the multiplayer as an optional online purcahse via xbox live or steam or what ever for twenty bucks. Total game cost for a few game 40 bucks, but the next profit for the game publisher/developer is more because they can charge twenty bucks for multi player and cut out the retailer on new and later used games.
Used games exist. This means they were sold by someone, at some point, who owned it first hand. I'm curious how many first-hand buyers would be less likely to buy a game that has a largely diminished resell value?
Hard media is slowly going away. Like it or not, one day, games will be all downloaded. For better or worse, it's just more efficient. I don't know when, but that's just the way it will be. I like my hard copies, and you'll pry them from my crusty gout-ridden hands, but I'll be the exception.
Sadly, "used games" will likely be a nostalgia. Why do they have to fight so hard against the used market. Let us enjoy our bargain bin rummaging.
Let's hope other areas won't adapt that idea.
If you buy a used car you'll only be able to use 70% of its features while the other perfectly fine working ones are artificially locked, unless you pay a ransom to the car manufacturer.
Seriously. While I can understand Sony's position of "used games = no money" for them, their repeated attempts to stifle user choice pretty much means that unless Sony is THE only option left on earth, you shouldn't be buying from them.
If someone demanded $300 and then kicked you in the nuts, would you give them more money when they demanded another $50? And then again when they demanded another $10-15? And then again when they insist you re-pay for everything you've bought because they've decided to shitcan support for all of it and convert to a new, incompatible format?
Or will it sink in when they devolve to charging pay-per-play? What? You paid your $5 for a single play and then our servers crashed? Sorry! Pay another $5 for the privilege of getting back on!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Pay per play used to be the dominant business model. Game arcades. Still happens today for games which have expensive hardware, think of a billiards table at the local pub. Just wait, they'll bring back arcades virtually. Rather than buying a cheap old game for 500 wii points, they'll let you play it for 25 points per go.
Or will it sink in when they devolve to charging pay-per-play? What? You paid your $5 for a single play and then our servers crashed? Sorry! Pay another $5 for the privilege of getting back on!
Isnt that how arcades work?
Why cant the same apply to multiplayer games if the servers are provided by sony?
If resale of a used game disc is a "lost sale" because more than one person gets to play the game, then why isn't it considered a "lost sale" when two to four people play a console game in split screen (such as a first-person shooter) or non-split shared screen (such as a fighting game)?
Like it or not, one day, games will be all downloaded.
"One day" probably isn't within this console generation, due in part to download caps. In some places, the average residential Internet access plan is satellite with a 10 GB/mo or smaller cap, which isn't enough to download disc-sized games along with the rest of home Internet use.
You know if ANY other industry tried this crap they would be sued and bankrupt in no time. If you bought a used car and had to pay a "used car fee" just to activate things like..the radio...emergency brakes...the air bag...would you or would you not punch the seller in the jewels or taco respectively. First the gaming industry was about the gamers...now it has taken the approach of the record industry in which THEY know better than you when it comes to YOU being entertained. This kind of thing has given excuse to anyone smart enough to hack a console and download games so they can "stick it to the man". Companies keep jacking the price up for worthless DLC the more people download or rip rented games for cheap, it off sets the actual worth of games who's only premise is "this game is awesome but with DLC it can cure cancer".....regardless of anyone's feelings I support the devs working on homebrew and jailbreaking systems, at least THEY have a heart and TRY to make fellow gamers happy...something companies have long forgotten.
I buy everything on Steam, and only when it's on sale.
Does Steam have solid games in all genres, even those not traditionally associated with PCs? Would you be willing to make Steam game suggestions for fans of games like Animal Crossing, Super Mario Galaxy, and Super Smash Bros., who are trying to convert from Wii to PC?
unless Sony is THE only option left on earth
Sony Music has a monopoly on Rickrolling, for one thing.
The fundamental difference is that I didn't outlay $600 for the console then another $100 for a game when I was playing in the arcade. I just shoveled "quarters" into the machine.
The WoW model works well - you buy the game disc (albeit at a fairly discounted rate) or download for free and then pay a monthly subscription to play. Seems a lot of people shovel money at that model. I don't get why the /. community is up in arms about what is essentially a variant on the WoW model, but with the "subscription" included in the original disc purchase and available for a one-time fee for non-original purchasers.
I drink to make other people interesting!
... its sick. Hated it for the first couple hours, then fell in love hard. Just like MAG.
This game is worth your original $60. Support good games by sending your cash to those who made it. I'm not saying I don't buy used, I just don't buy used and don't seek discounts on games I know that I want to see more of.
Seems a tad bit more likely that this is to target Piracy rather than the resale of a used game. Sony started doing this thing a couple months ago with Medal of Honor; it's not new with SOCOM.
Just another greedy company trying to squeeze every last drop of blood out of their customers because they seem to think that all the money we have is theirs. Have they forgotten that we need money to buy food and pay for a roof over our heads? I'm not surprised though. They're just responding to their environment. The whole system is corrupt from the ground up and needs to be replaced. But I doubt you'll be able to convince 6 million people to do away with the current socio-economic system. The current market/monetary system is more of an anti-economy. Profit first. Everything else comes second. This is just another symptom of a broken system. I forgot where I was going with this. Oh, look! Shiny! :D
the servers are indeed provided by sony and you have absolutely no say in it (only other choice is don;t buy the game of the console for that matter)....
If there's a healthy second hand market, I'd be prepared to pay more for a new game, knowing that I can get some of it back selling it on later.
If there's no second hand market, I'm less happy to shell out €€€ for a game.
So in that sense, the developer does benefit from a second hand market.
Nobody buys on release date anyway. Everybody knows you can buy the same product for less money a month later. Everybody will also know that Gamestop sells incomplete games in their used section, so they'll have to discount them even more. Everyone will also know that you won't be able to trade in those games with the code for very much money. It'll be like with the obsolete sports games now.
I like how everyone is expecting online distribution is going to save the developers. Have you seen the prices on Steam? All I ever see is 7 games for the price of 1! Cool sleeper hit game discounted to $9.99! Damn, the retailers must be taking quite a big bite out of the pie, if they can sell on Steam for $10 and think they're making outrageous sums of money. So that's the future I guess. Me buying SOCOM 4 via digital distribution in 2 years for $15 in a bundle that includes SOCOM 4 5 and 6 with the beta for SOCOM 7.
I genuinely hope this progresses to the logical extreme of "buy multiplayer direct from us", because then I won't have to subsidize/pay for something I don't use. And the publishers will realise how lousy the carbon copy multiplayer side of their tired franchise is when it's reviewed separately, and stop stapling it on to a watered down campaign just to keep a game in people's disc trays until the DLC comes out or the servers shut down. I've never played a SOCOM game in my life, and I bet that I'm not missing out on much compared to say, the very first chapter of Dead Space 2?
I would have bought Starcraft 2 on launch day if Blizzard sold a $30 version without multiplayer (I heard they do have separate digital SKUs in Korea). Those cyborgs can have their battle.net, I want the story and maybe I'll feel like playing it again in a year's time. $30 would be worth that for me, I don't want to pirate it, I want some god damn consumer choice! (andfirstsaledoctrinethanksverymuch)
Seems to me Bungie has a good thing going. Once in a while I think about getting a Bungie Pro account because, y'know, lookit-mah-space-lazorz, but then I get distracted by other games for 6 or 7 months. I play games like other people read novels. Multiplayer shooters are the trashy romance side of the industry, a cash cow with puerile thrills and little substance.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
and with all the crap sony is pulling suing people and hobbling the ps3 why would you?
Because no one chose to fight this on the PC, activation has come to the console and unlike the PC, there is no crack that you can use in 10 years time.
First they forced activation the PC games, but I said nothing because I wasn't a PC gamer.
Next the forced activation on PS gamers, but I said nothing because I was an Xbox fanboy.
Then they forced Activation on me, and there was no-one left to speak out for me.
Fitting no, as a PC gamer I've long realised that what happens on PC, will eventually translate to consoles, consoles are just a few years behind. Expect Ubisoft style "always on-line" DRM enforced sometime in 2013.
You have been warned.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
For an extra $1 you can buy the tool that lets you plant a flower x times per game that dies from metal poisoning from the bomb rust into the soil around it!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
... for a legitimate buyer to get screwed when buying used software. I'd hardly trust software I bought in the store, and I wouldn't trust used software (except maybe old DOS or console games).
Then i will be giving SOCOM the 'enhancement' of extra bandwidth on there servers by not buying game (new or 2nd hand)
We all know where this is leading: game developers are going to end up locking games to the system on which they're installed, and refusing to allow installs to new systems. Console engineers will make this as easy as possible because they only make money when you buy a new game too. This will of course destroy the used games market, which is the only reason they're delaying, because it would piss off their retail partners.
Pirates, of course, will still have access to everything.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
If I want story I'll read a book or watch a movie or TV show. Games are for playing, and playing with other people far outclasses AI. Replayability is king.
Just my opinion, of course.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
It's not so much like paying GM an extra fee to unlock your stereo, because GM doesn't maintain the roads or drive-in theaters or whatever would equate to a multiplayer server that needs to be maintained. It's more like registering a used car would cost an extra $15 if you want access to public roads.
Really, what do you expect from Sony. Given that I decided to boycott Sony and affiliated products a while ago because of their business practices, this will never matter to me. I suggest you adopt a similar strategy. After all, it's just a game.
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
(Smash amp, burn guitar, take home the groupies)
All they do is stripping their customers off the rights they once had with a purchased copy of a game.
Lets look at this scenario.
Person A buys game for 50$, Sony now has 50$ more, The copy of the game only used by Person A is now eligible for additional content.
Person A buys game for 50$, Sony now has 50$ more. Person A sells game for 20$ to Person B, The copy of the game only used by Person B is not eligible for additional content.
All I can see here is greed and a despisable business model.
So, if I want (or need) to save a few dollars and decide to purchase said game at GameStop, I will have to pay more to "unlock" the game? What a pile of horse shit! I don't see Nvidia disabling 3D Rendering and only enabling video output just because I bought a used graphics card from my buddy because he bought a new one.
Way to screw the little guy, Sony!
a) I'm a SOCOM player, but not very good.
b) I own a few SONY devices and game titles
c) Until SONY agrees that purchasing the hardware is actually purchasing the hardware, I won't be giving them any more of my money. That includes music, movies, hardware and games.
BTW, I worked for about 3 yrs with SONY in Japan deploying some software. They are generally nice folks with a few pricks at the top making decisions without considering the "community."
I can be a prick too, just not on the same scale as SONY. I doubt my lack of purchases will make any difference and I have no illusions that anyone else will care or bother. Most people are sheep.
In an age when the sustainability of the $60 console games is in question do these idiots really think it's such a great idea to drive more nails into the coffin?
...their repeated attempts to stifle user choice pretty much means that unless Sony is THE only option left on earth, you shouldn't be buying from them.
It'll be a sad day if the only option is SONY or a SONY-like company as *the* provider. I would rather just do without.
Not sure if this was already discussed here: The issue is due to places such as GameStop selling used games; developers and publishers make nothing off of it. All the money made on used games goes back to GameStop only. I imagine if there was a certain percentage geared towards the manufacturer, then possibly it wouldn't be so much of an issue.
Sony is by far the worst offender. Vote with your wallet.
Remember when Infinium Labs was working on their Phantom console and were touting the idea of content all being downloaded? Everybody laughed and said that it would never happen. Nobody would want to download their games. Who would want to give up their DVDs?
Here we are, less than 10 years since that initial announcement and PC games are mostly sold by services like Steam, GOG, and Impulse, services like Gametap are popular, and all three major consoles sell a lot of games via their online marketplaces. There is even a spiritual successor to the Phantom in the OnLive game system which is more or less a terminal server/VNC/Citrix client.
They've already got all the preorder bonuses you can get depending on where you preorder from. So now I guess you've got 3 classes of player for each game. Preorder gamers, New game gamers and used game gamers. And the used gamers come in at the bottom of the totem pole.
No. The store sold me the game, on the disc. Once I'm finished playing the game, I can do whatever the hell I want with the game and the disc. If I want to give it to someone else, I don't have to ask anyone's permission. Sony or EA can't stop me from reselling the game. That's US law. I'm allowed to sell my stuff when I don't want it any more.
And do you know what most gamers do with the money they get from selling their used games? They buy MORE games. So the money in the used game markets isn't even all "lost" to the game developers. It allows the guys who need all the newest games as soon as they come out to buy more games.
If this drives used copies of SOCOM4 down to $0.99 then I'm ok with it. IF not, then I will not be buying anything in the SOCOM franchise anymore.
It's getting bad everywhere in gaming. Halo:Reach was a incredibly short game that can be finished on Normal setting in a single weekend, it sold for full retail prices. Dragon Age II is 1/2 a game and requires you to buy all the DLC separately to get the whole game making it a $120.00 game.
Honestly, I'm done buying any video game new. IT will be used and after the ass-baggery that the game maker pulled has been revealed so I can avoid it.
Hear that gaming industry? You will not get any money directly from me anymore, I'll buy used and steal money from your babies mouths!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
If buying used is "theft" then I'l stop buying used and start torrenting again and sharing with others. Fuck game developers if they dare to even equate used purchase with theft.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Dominoes swears delivery is free, but pizzas cost half as much if you pick them up at the store. It's unlawful for broadcasters to turn up the volume of the commercials, so they just lower the volume of the actual programs. Sony doesn't punish people for buying used games, they just reward the people who don't.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Remember, whenever you leave the room to take a leak during a television commercial, you're stealing from the people who actually paid for that program!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
An online game for a console is kind of a dead end. Let me explain. There are online games for PC which I played 10+ years ago and I still love to play, like Team Fortress Classic and Unreal. If these had been console games, I would no longer be able to enjoy them online. That is because the console makers only care about keeping the servers up as long as that system is the shiney gadget of the month. Once the newer console comes out, the servers will be shut off for the old system/players shortly after. There is no way for the fans to keep hosting the servers for each other either.
On a PC, even if the publishers take down the multiplayer master servers, fans can (and have) kept our favorite games playable.
The only console ever to get online play right was the Dreamcast. With Quake 3, fans could not only run their own servers, but we could play together with the PC players and get schooled by people with mice.
non-split shared screen (such as a fighting game)
Perhaps that's why is split screen, not dual screen.
It gives you a shittier experience than you would get if you did actually go buy your own copy.
Bomberman series, Street Fighter series, and Super Smash Bros. series don't split the screen. In these games, what advantage would a separate view per player provide?
Exactly. If they "sold the experience" aka a license to use content, then they should freely provide said content to paying customers. This is something in my opinion Steam does well. They dont sell me a game they sell me the license to play the game. If i lose my actual physical copy of my game its not a big deal as they will provide me with a digital copy. Publishers these days tho seem to want to have it both ways. Cant make backups of your games and now cant sell it used for what its worth because "paying for license to play" but they will certainly not replace your copy if it gets scratched or stolen. You paid for a game not the license.
Thanks for the letting us all know for the 1000th time.... homo
Would you be okay if GM, Toyota, Nissan, or (insert your favorite company here) decided that you needed to pay them $3,000 immediately after purchase to be able to drive your used car or they leave it "deactivated"? If we would find this practice unacceptable, why should we find disabling/limiting software in this fashion acceptable? I would also say that if an auto maker even attempted such a thing there would be more than a mild fart of a fiasco on capital hill.
For all intents and purposes, the gaming company has already received their payment for the purchase and use of that disk. And don't give me the software is not the same as hardware baloney. If I buy a car and resell it to another the manufacturing company remains in the exact same monetary status as if I chose to just keep the car (they don't make a dime on resell). There is also no guarantee that I would buy a new/used car, or if I would buy a car at all to replace transportation. Same principle applies to a disc with a game on it. The gaming company is every bit the same as the car makers. They produce a product and that product should be considered that disc and its contents.
Now imagine if any hardware manufacture decided to play the same game with its hardware that software likes to play.
Don't buy SOCOM 4, I won't and that is the small part I will do to send my own message. Join me.
> No. The store sold me the game, on the disc. Once I'm finished playing the game, I can do whatever the hell I want with the game and the disc
No. You can't. You can only do what you want with the disc. The game is an experience you - as a consumer - have consumed.
You can't regurgitate food and pass that on. You can't unlisten to music and expect to sell it, you can't unexperience a game and expect to sell that.
Your "stuff" is tangibles. It's material goods. You can expect to sell on your material goods because the value in those goods is embodied in the goods themselves.
The value in a game is the experience. The media in and of itself has no utility that you could continue to benefit from if you were to keep it. When you sell a chair, you're deprived of the value of that chair and its utility. Once you've installed a game, the utility of the media is gone and there's nothing for you to sell. You have the right to sell the delivery mechanism. You do not have the right to sell the experience. Only the publisher has that right.
Basically, the disc is a box, and the game is a cake. You've eaten the cake and are now loudly trying to proclaim your right to resell the box because it's capable of magically producing another cake. The fact that this is a byproduct of the delivery mechanism completely escapes you. Despite the fact you've contributed nothing to the cake, you feel you have the right to sell a cake-producing box and feel sufficiently aggrieved to bitch and whine when the people who actually put blood, sweat and tears into producing the magic cake-producing box object to your behaviour and take steps to ensure people buy their own cake-producing box instead of using yours to cheat the developer.
> And do you know what most gamers do with the money they get from selling their used games? They buy MORE games.
Oh, give me a break. If gamers had to buy all their games for full price, perhaps they'd have to - oh, I don't know - get a fucking job to pay for their gaming habit.
I'm not buying the retarded excuse that gamers need to rip off developers so they can buy more games. That's like saying piracy's okay, because pirates save money which they'll spend on other goods, thus pumping value back into the economy. And that benefits all of us, dontcha know!
Basically, I fully support the publishers doing everything they can to stop the used game market from stealing from them. If you don't like it, tough. Consider the benefits of growing up - you know... thinking and acting like an adult, instead of a leech expecting a free lunch.
Friends don't let friends buy Sony, even second hand, enough said.
As a 6 year member of Gamefly, I haven't bought a new game during that time span. I really enjoy the freedom of beating the game and tossing it aside without having to be an achievement whore to get my money's worth. Once it gets too bad Gamefly should just stop supporting these games altogether. Who would want to rent a game where you need to pay 15$ to play the best parts? Gamefly needs to make its buying power known to the major companies. I would imagine on a major release title they buy about 5-10k copies, I would say that should have some sway.
But looking long term this is a win win for Major Publishers. If the used community is low or nonexistent, that means the game loses its online replay-ability very rapidly. So gamers are stuck to play a game with a poor user community, or buy the next new shiny best game ever. The big publishers have no reason to change the course unless something major happens.
There is no easy solution, just try to support these publishers as little as possible.
You might actually have a point here, IF:
New games were not obscenely priced to begin with (one HUGE profit margin)
Almost every single used game out there were sold as new at one point (something we tend to forget when discussing "losses")
Most new games these days are designed around the online multi-player model, or "experience" as you call it, which is yet another for-profit model charging consumers a monthly fee to actually use the product they just got done paying $50 - $60 for. This monthly fee model is akin to the cellular market, and consumers are too wrapped up in bells, whistles, and game add-on packs to be concerned with the fact that they're actually paying hundreds of dollars for this "experience".
In other words, I don't want to hear shit about how game vendors are "starving" here, because their profit margins scream otherwise. The only thing all this bitching is doing is keeping lawyers employed.
I can't unlisten to music. But I can sell my cds. Just like I can sell books I've read, DVDs I've watched, and yes games I've played.
The media has the game on it. With the media comes the right to play the game. When I sell a chair, I can't sit on it any more. When I sell a game, I can't play it any more. Yes, I still have the memories of the fun I had playing the game, but I still have the memories of the enjoyment I had sitting on that chair.
If someone REALLY wanted to buy the cake after I ate it, the bakery doesn't have any standing to tell me I can't do so (The government probably would, for health reasons..).
I always thought the way for the publishers to stop 'whining' about game resales would lead to them charging Resellers that have a high volume of sales a fee for reselling thier games. Sort of like how ASCAP charges the Coffee Shop for the right to play thier songs in the store, but doesn't charge the Cheerleading team for playing music during thier carwash fundraiser. The way I'd imagined it, a Reseller could even send used copies that were kinda beat up back to the publisher for replacement, and it would also give the Publishers a way to pull old games out of circulation and generate additional scarcity.
Granted I guess that's not necessarialy 'good', but as a consumer I'm fairly certain that extra $5 or so I spend on an out-of-print game would be noticed less than having to spend a separate $5 to activate it after I get home. Plus they can get a new/repeat revenue stream from pre-internet titles as well.
Let's look at this situation. $15 dollars plus a slightly discounted price for a used game? And I'm sure that price will NEVER go up It's a win/win for the company. People buy used games for one reason, a discount; maybe finding a nostalgia game. The discount for a used game is not that much until it has been out for a long period of time. So what happens? You might as well go buy the game new! This increases sales for the company. And if the game is older; even if it's 3,4,5+ years? oh, well f*** me they still make money. And think of the money they will make retroactively. Nobody wins but the companies. I really don't see how I could be wrong here. This is nothing but a money grab and anyone who posts "no big deal" or "how is this different" or "pirates and do it for the children" can
Bad Company 2 for Xbox/PS3 has the same system in place. You're stuck on the same shitty six maps from launch if you don't pay the $10 used game tax. Once you pay the $10 used game tax, you can play the 14 other multiplayer maps they've released since then.
The problem with buying used multiplayer games 2-3 months after release is that the community is largely dead, and it's just not a good value due to the lack of player base. The $10 tax helps keep the used copy's final cost in line with the new game's price.
moox. for a new generation.
Parent is correct. If all i'm purchasing is a license, then give me the content on ALL my devices for no more cost other than physical media. OK that's aimed more at music/movies but applies to games in the damaged/lost disk situation.
I'm all for content providers/creators getting their share. But this excess of squeezing the crap out of consumers, that only encourages piracy, and I for one am sick of it.
And for parent, you can remove the word "almost" from the statement of 'I can almost guarantee they'll demand you buy another copy"
Those who can, do.
Well... the price of new games has driven me to purchase used games. At an average of $60.00 for a new console game just think, how long does it take the average person to make that $60.00 bucks. Would you work a day or half a day for a game? Sorry, I have a mortgage. This game of Life is not even close to the board game BOOOO.
is "Who has the real power?"
You the buyers do!
If you're happy spending $50-$60 bucks a pop for bug-riddled games offering only 5 hours of campaign mode, DRM, limited installations, and no resale value, then by all means, open your wallets wide for the ongoing rip-off.
If not, then DON'T BUY. And be certain to visit the game developers' forums and state firmly and directly why you are not buying their games.
If even a small fraction of buyers did that, say, 10,000 or 20,000 customers, game developers and publishers would be falling all over themselves to get customers back.
YOU are the ones who have the power to make game producers change.
Otherwise, you're all just easy marks.
- Cardhu
SOCOM is basically an online game to most buyers. Online costs SONY money and is factored into the purchase price. Also factored into that price is how long/often they expect the buyer to use the online service. If the disc changes hands then that original calculation is now longer accurate. I never use special weapons etc in these games anyways. I tend to stick with defaults and I still have lots of fun.
In my opinion, I think the current approach in the sale of used games is bad. If money changes hands, or a service fee is charged, the publisher should be paid. Yes, you own the game and you are not buying a licence. The sale of used games is perfectly legal. However, I find it immoral when companies position themselves so that the majority of their business is focused on the second hand market. I'd like to know what you guys think about this. Does it make sense to require a special licence to sell used video games? Afterall you need a licence for liquor and cigarettes, and I'm guessing that is really just so taxes can be collected. I think it should be legal for consumers to sell their used games, but not for companies unless a cut is given to publishers...just like taxes. This would allow people to still sell and buy their used games, but would discourage companies from taking advantage of the 'quick fix'/'easily transferable' state of video games. I guess then ebay/goozex would be getting most of the business...hmmm
Anyways, back on topic. I think what SONY has done is much more fair to the consumer than having to pay for multi-player access in general. My ideal scenario would be the "newness" of games doesn't matter at all, but the sale of used games is restricted to the consumee level and/or commercial sale is taxed for the publishing company.
Thoughts?
Just adding more fuel to the fire for your friendly neighboorhood software pirate!
Seems to me Sony is selling a game with a gift card for an online profile upgrade. Used game is only the first part - you cannot resell a gift card after you used it. I don't see what the fuss is all about.
Subject says it all.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"