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."

Comments

Good job sony.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Good job sony.

[ArundelCastle]

If you support the shit out of a multinational corporation, eventually you'll be covered in it.

Re:Good job sony.

[Ganthor]

A new slogan

"Fuck you, buy it new!"

Re:Good job sony.

[elrous0]

You know, I just can't believe that such a friendly company like Sony would engage in such control-freak, greedy behavior. What the hell has the media world come to?

Re:Good job sony.

[ancienthart]

"As of late?"
I got pissed off with Sony when I bought a minidisk recorder and found out that because they invented/used a proprietary format, I had to pull the recordings onto my Linux machine at 1x speed through the line-in. That was over 10 years ago.

So what.

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:So what.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not. As usual people on slashdot will cry over something they'll never intented to play anyway, just because it's DRM and about the used games market. It's like game play for these people is crying about it on slashdot rather than actually even wanting to play the game.

Look, if I want to play the game I can pay the $15 (if I bought a used copy, which I never do).

Re:So what.

[Doctor_Jest]

It's really a fitting analogy, but if only the big game companies (Sony/Microsoft included) weren't so damn pissy about used games in general, this wouldn't be a bother. I cannot stand their tantrums about used sales "killing the industry". As if used car sales kill the automotive industry... or used books/CDs kill their respective markets. It just doesn't happen that way, and their "service without the service" mentality is what is going to cause them to nickel and dime the player until he or she simply tosses the console in the closet and goes back to minesweeper. :)

The First Sale Doctrine really chaps their asses. This is their way of "play ball with me and I promise I won't shove the bat up your ass."

Re:So what.

[Anonymous Coward]

One player is giving another player his copy of the game. For each copy of the game sold, they can and should expect that there will be that number of clients online. While the client may have changed, the number of clients will not have. Thus, there are no extra costs for server maintenance/load.

Re:So what.

[517714]

A player is expected to have a finite life as an active user, probably less than two years. The price of the game is set based on assumptions about the attrition rate. Giving the game to another user extends the length of time the server load exists for that copy of the software.

Re:So what.

[Americium]

I'm surprised you can still buy used games at all. Considering I only purchase digital copies (perhaps due to my innate fear of leaving my apt, or perhaps the utterly horrible sales associates), I have never partaken in this 'used' video game market.

Used games will surely disappear in our digital age soon enough, so this is sure to be only be a fleeting policy.

On a side note, I actually did go into a Gamestop the other day to see if they had splitter for my Kinect (I got the new one with an xbox), so I could split it into a normal USB and a power supply (like they sell for the old xbox models), the purpose being to be able to 'hack' it on my computer and do something fun. He called me a hacker, told me his store does not support these policies, it's illegal, blah blah please leave.

I countered with MS releasing/soon to release the SDK, so it could be for legitimate purposes; to which he replied "what is an SDK?"

Re:So what.

[DFurno2003]

I think the difference is that the CD is required to play these games, and if you are not the original owner then you would face drawbacks and have to fork over $15 to get the full content.

Re:So what.

[BoberFett]

If the used game market is eliminated entirely, prices will have to fall accordingly or they will simply sell less units.

Re:So what.

[ragethehotey]

A player is expected to have a finite life as an active user, probably less than two years. The price of the game is set based on assumptions about the attrition rate. Giving the game to another user extends the length of time the server load exists for that copy of the software.

Tough shit for the developers, accept it as a cost of business and move on. The nanosecond that someone figures a way to play with a private server, they lose a paying customer forever when someones friend of a friend shows him how to play online for free and becomes a pirate in the process. EA Sports and such can get away with this because of the nature of their business, because that copy of Madden 12 is really only played online for 18 months tops before it becomes obsolete anyway.

Re:So what.

[im_thatoneguy]

Well I'll hand them one difference and that is that generally when you purchase a used something that something is inferior.

If I could buy a 'brand new' 2008 car whose owner's manual was wrinkled at 2008 car prices I would happily do it.

The gaming experience of a used title is identical as a new one the only difference being that Gamestop gets $20 in revenue and the developers get nothing.

I doubt the developers would be unhappy if gamers sold their games back to the developers for 20% of their purchase price and then were able to resell it again at a discount price.

The real problem with the used games market is that it's worse than piracy.

Let's take the typical life cycle of a used game:

Owner 1 Purchase $60
Owner 1 Resale $20
Cost $40

Owner 2 Purchase $40
Owner 2 Resale $15
Cost $25

Gamestore through reselling probably made far more in profit from selling used than new copies.

But one of the customers spent $40 on a product none of which went to the developers. And the first customer probably only saved $20.

So let's say the transactions end there and that game is never resold. The argument goes that the first purchaser only bought the game at $60 because he knew it actually would end up costing $40. But if he bought 2 games and pirated one game then he would still only spend $120 for 3 games and the developers missed out on $60. So if it stops here then the developers lose from piracy and they should encouraged used games sales since they make the full $180.

But now you have to look at the used games market. If our 2nd tier used games buyers buy each of the games at $40 instead of $60 (and assume they can sell it at let's say $15 back to the game stores) then their per game cost is $25. If they buy the 3 games (from buyer 1) it'll cost them $75. But that's $75 that doesn't go to the developers. If though the person instead pirated those 3 games instead of buying used and bought one full price $60 game with the money saved then that would pay for the original piracy in the case of Buyer 1 not reselling 3 games at $20 each. In fact if Buyer 2 who is now spending $75 on new games instead of $75 on used games is actually putting *more* money into the developers' hands by reducing their per game cost by means of piracy.

Now these numbers are made up... but I think I'm being pretty generous on the resale values that Gamestop charges and my point is that through the used market money is being diverted from the developers to the resellers. If in the above example Buyer 1 never put his games up for sale and instead minimized his per unit cost through piracy then Buyer 2 would have no market and again through piracy reducing his per-unit expenses to be the same as buying used if he still spent the same amount except on new games the developers would do better through piracy than used.

Re:So what.

[ShakaUVM]

>>The First Sale Doctrine really chaps their asses

We really need Congress to step up enforcement of the First Sale Doctrine.

Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment, even.

Re:So what.

[Americium]

So by not catering to the market that gives them NO money makes them lose money? Used books/CDs cut into sales, of course, how could they not?

Comparing physical commodities, like cars, where resale value is a huge buying point, to these digital arts, where resale value is never considered, is nonsensical.

Perhaps used stereos would be a better comparison, but still, Sony doesn't have to do anything at all if I sell my stereo to someone else. In this case, when I sell my video game to someone else, they need to create a new login and provide me with service I have NOT paid for.

Perhaps the price is too high, but considering it's the same for just 1 month of WOW, it seems pretty cheap to me.

Re:So what.

[BrianRoach]

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?

When it was just that, it wasn't a problem. Most of my old games would happily install on your machine if I sold you the disc and you typed in the key. The keys were stickers on the jewel cases, and there was none of this draconian "You can only install this game 5 times, and only on Tuesdays"

How is this any different than me selling my MMO CDs to a friend and then laughing when he can not get online?

Because it's not a subscription service that you could download the client for free anyway unless someone scammed you as in your example? You're comparing apples and steaks here.

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 do I access that profile once I sell the game? I bought it, right?

How is this any different than just about every other game with online components?

It's not *now*. And therein lies the problem. It's an end run around the first sale doctrine by basically saying, "We didn't sell you that, we "licensed" it to you". Imagine if you couldn't buy a used car without paying Ford a "transfer fee" for the keys.

Personally ... I've never sold a game in my life, or bought one used for that matter ... the few bucks just isn't worth the hassle. But many, many people do - because they can't afford to buy everything they want new. There is a fairly huge secondary market with console games, and the game companies want to eliminate it because they somehow think people will magically have more money to spend.

Re:So what.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try, but this is wrong thinking. There is no 'obligation' for the publisher to provide online functionality or to host online servers, that is a choice they made, as it is a choice that they do not require a subscription to play. I don't like the idea of all of these games becoming pay to play via subscriptions, but it's the only honest way to do what they are doing. Removing features which shipped with the game is blackmail. Requiring a subscription to play extended content (content not included on the retail disk) is a service.

Not unlike PlaystationNetwork being provided with the purchase of your PS3. Playstation+ (I know somebody will make a comment about it) has nothing to do with the PlaystationNetwork, it's just a subscription service that get's you basically nothing but early access to game demo's and beta invites.

Re:So what.

[kenshin33]

or pirates :-)

Re:So what.

[Americium]

So you think the resale value of video games is high enough to prevent people from purchasing them, I have my doubts. I think resale value is not considered in 99% of video game purchases, so therefore prices would not need to move at all.

All that happens is that the people buying used video games can no longer buy them, but that money never went to Sony anyway.

Re:So what.

[kenshin33]

is that sarcasm ???
Extra cost they imposed on themselves. At some point in time (PC mostely) there was the possibility to have private dedicated servers (the osftware came with the games : Unreal, Unreal Tournament Quack ... etc) for anyone who wished to host one ... and there were no extra cost for anyone except may be for those who chose to host the servers.

Re:So what.

[Vaphell]

what?
economics 101 - if there is no competition, prices rise

Re:So what.

[kenshin33]

most of go to the publisher. and most the money that went to the Dev company will go in the pocket of CEO and stuff the devs have a salary and that's that.
the problem with every market is middle men. It's either too much or too hungry/greedy. The numbers crunched in the parent aren;'t that off.

Re:So what.

[Degro]

Not being able to resell such software is bullshit though. They only get away with it on PCs because you've always had to install it. Console discs are no different than a movie or music disc or even a book. Blocking resale of this stuff should be criminal.

Re:So what.

[bane2571]

consider the buyer that currently buys a release date game on the undestanding he can polish it off in 2 weeks and resell for 1/2 value. That guy might buy 1/2 as many games without a used games market and since early adopters are a much touted statistic ("X00,000 copies sold in first 2 weeks" etc). Losing resale guy is not a great idea.

Re:So what.

[erroneus]

Now wait a moment. Where the XBox360 is concerned, users pay for access to the multiplayer network. I don't use anything Sony but I think PSN is free though... free to people who own a PS3 or whatever. In either case, the access has been paid for. The game has been paid for. Providing lesser service until an additional cost is paid is a tax.

While we are at it, let's do the same thing for people who received their game consoles and games as a gift! After all, they didn't pay for them either right?

Re:So what.

[Anonymous Coward]

BS you buy something, you should be able to resell it end of point there's no difference between a game and a used book.

Re:So what.

[Americium]

I thought the whole point of this particular game was that there was additional content.

Yes someone else paid a 1-time access fee for himself, and it's not transferable. Someone that buys new games won't expect service to last as long as someone buying a 3yr old game, just to find out the servers are going offline in a month. There is added cost, and less revenue, I would think them charging for this would just be common sense. Just because PSN might be free doesn't mean it's free to operate, it's subsidized by video game sales, NEW video game sales.

Although in a way this makes a great argument that xbox360 games shouldn't have to have this added fee, because it's already built into their monthly access fee model.

Usually if you buy something as a 'gift', it's meant to be transferred before use, not after, huge difference.

The entire notion of 'used' 0's and 1's doesn't make sense to me anyway, it should be identical to the original, and if it's not, it's not 'used', it's corrupt. So actually they are reselling brand new video games, and marketing them as 'used' and not giving any proceeds to Sony, wonder why they don't like this?

Re:So what.

[Americium]

Depends entirely on the percentage of resale guys. Like I mentioned, I assumed 99% aren't resale buyers. Obviously I just pulled that out of my ass, but I'm sure you have no idea either, so it's almost impossible to figure out.

Either way, the profit made in the used market is going toward video game stores and not Sony, and that's what they want. If Sony realizes this through cheaper games and higher volumes, or same price games and slightly higher volumes is irrelevant. They will capture some of that money, if not all of it, by removing the used video game market.

Re:So what.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there's no actual reason you need an "online profile" in these games, and they exist purely to lock people out. In fact, it doesn't actually even give you an online profile half the time, just attaches it to your existing profiles like your Xbox live or PSN profile unnecessarily.

And it's a real problem, because it's not just used game sales it's fucking over, it's fucking over legitimate players like me. When I buy a retail game, and have to attach it to my profile to play online, it means my girlfriend can't then play it online on her profile, on her Xbox, when I'm playing something else on mine.

So what's happening, is the industry is clamping down well beyond preventing piracy- it's a fundamental shift in product rights, from one game per household, to one game per system. If you're a family with 3 kids they want you to buy the same game 3 times, and I'm sorry but that absolutely fucking stinks.

It's precisely this sort of thing that means I refuse to condemn piracy- if they're going to rape my rights, then why the flying fuck should I care if someone is infringing theirs? Game companies in their greed are making themselves the enemy, and they frankly deserve everything they get. Personally I just wont buy a game that requires a one time code to play the major features of the game, I'll just pirate it and play the bits that are enabled without the code, and they can cry more if that upsets them. Oh, and this is coming from someone who has 180 XBox 360 retail games in the house, all bought brand new, so, well, the more games they release with codes, the more money they lose from me I'm afraid.

Re:So what.

[silanea]

Does not compute. When owner 1 has sold their two games (And where does that stupid part about them pirating anything come from? How can owner 2 buy three games from owner 1 when owner 1 only has purchased two games? WTF?!) they will, in all likelihood, take those $ 40 they saved, put another $ 20 on top and buy another freshly released game. Which they most likely could not afford to do if they could not recover some of the cost from reselling - otherwise they would not need to sell their games at all. Owner 2 on the other hand obviously either does not want to or cannot pay those $ 60 for a game in the first place, so if no $ 40 used copy was available they most likely would either not buy the games at all or they could only afford one of the games. Many people who buy used games do so out of necessity. They may buy a game for the full price once their financial situation permits. And by that time they will be hooked to certain franchises or developers through the used games they bought. The used games market essentially is a marketing device, or rather it would be if it was not treated like a traitor to the nation by certain publishers.

Re:So what.

[rbrausse]

should I mod this funny, flamebait or insightful?

Re:So what.

[hairyfeet]

Because what you seem to be missing is that sites like GS allow someone who has beaten games to trade them towards the purchase of NEW games they would most likely not make without? Aka lets slit our own throats by making our item less attractive then our competitors?

Plus it is kinda ignoring the elephants in the room which are in no particular order "its a recession dumbass" and "I can get it for $0 dollars!". Hacked X360s? You can get ALL day long on Craigslist for around $100 bucks. Can't play it online? Well who gives a shit? Most folks have a handful they play online as most of us don't care for dealing with foul mouthed teenagers anyway, so no problemo. Wouldn't be surprised if the hacked PS3s will be showing up soon enough.

So at a time when people have LESS money for non essential items (checked the price of gas lately?) Sony as usual is being giant pricks and making their software worth less. Wow, what a surprise, stupid corp pisses on its customers, how could it possibly go wrong?

But of course this makes ME very happy, as one of my better sellers ATM is HTPCs, so thanks Sony. All I have to do is fire up something like Just Cause 2 or HL2:Episode 2 and let them see how purty it looks on an HD48xx (which you can get an HD4830 refurb for $60, if you are lucky an HD4850) and show them how easy it is to surf with it, play games, watch movies, play all their music, all from the comfort of their easy chair with a wireless keyboard and mouse or a wireless X360 controller? Cha Ching baby! Of course the fact that they can get plenty of fresh gaming goodness thanks to Steam and Amazon for less than $10 a pop certainly makes it an easier choice in this climate.

So thanks Sony, thanks for being douchebags and making things worse for your customers. Not only are you a solid last place in the console wars, which means coming up with a PS4 will probably break you, but it makes PC sellers like me have a much easier time, so thanks.

BTW Sony, did you know the X360 is butt simple to wire up with Windows 7? Makes a hell of a media center extender and at $100 a pop or so used is a dirt cheap way for them to have their living room PC play content all over the house. That way they can have lots of the top games for cheaper on PC AND if they want to frag online with their friends they can grab a copy for their X360 and do XBL if they wish. Real easy sale Sony, thanks again!

Re:So what.

[Anonymous Coward]

"How is this any different than me selling my MMO CDs to a friend and then laughing when he can not get online?"

In that case EVERYONE even first time buyers have to pay to play. In the case in the article, only those who buy used copies have to pay. They are trying to actively cripple the product once it is resold. Imagine if Toyota installed computers in their cars, and demanded that used car buyers had to pay 25% of the original cars price in "online activation fees" to allow the car to drive once it was resold.

There is nothing wrong in demanding more money for premium content, but having that premium content given free to first time buyers is just a scheme to make resales less valuable, which is despicable and would be considered illegal for any other product type.

Re:So what.

[ArsenneLupin]

You forgot to mention that the second buyer usually only gets the game way after it came out (unless piracy was also involved...). That is, first user has to buy game, play it, get bored with it and resell it.

So not only does the second player get a slightly wrinkled manual, but also he gets a game which is no longer hip. So it's normal that he saves some money on it. No need to "punish" him additionally by crippling the game.

Re:So what.

[Totenglocke]

Heh, that's what we need....an amendment to the Constitution requiring the government to follow the Constitution.....too bad they'd just ignore that part of it as well.

Re:So what.

[kenshin33]

The choice is yours :-). It was a wink (;)), but on a more serious note it seams that piracy is a way of the market adapting/reacting (not saying good or bad), so I would humbly go for insightful (an other ;))

Re:So what.

[Xtifr]

The real problem with the used games market is that it's worse than piracy.

Horsecrap! Lets take a much more complicated scenario, but to simplify it, we'll ignore the details that don't matter.

A. New game is purchased for $X. Game developers get their cut, $C.
B. Game changes hands some unknown number of times, possibly with intermediaries involved, possibly not.
C. Final result, one and only one person owns that one copy of the game which was fully paid for.

All the other details (how much some hypothetical intermediaries might have made and so on) are completely irrelevant. One copy was sold to one owner, and one owner now owns one copy. That's all the developers can and should care about. The fact that they may be jealous of Gamestop's insane profits doesn't mean they deserve one nickel more money or that Gamestop is doing anything wrong. (Actually, they are doing something wrong, but selling used games is not it.)

Gamestore through reselling probably made far more in profit from selling used than new copies.

Gamestop has a near monopoly, and they're abusing it badly. Now, that's still not a problem for the developers (no matter how jealous they might feel about the situation), but it's a problem for us. Unfortunately, the only way to deal with a monopoly is to create competition (or regulate it, and I sincerely hope we don't come to that pass). So the game devs are jealous of all the perfectly legal abusive profits that Gamestop is making? Answer is obvious: open their own stores, and compete on used game prices. If there were competition in the used games market, Gamestop wouldn't be able to charge their insane markups (and they are insane).

Note that it doesn't have to be the developers competing directly with Gamestop--I only suggest them because they're the ones that whine about Gamestop's monopolistic profit margins. It could as easily be Amazon or Barnes & Noble or Radio Shack. The point is, Gamestop's insane profits don't come because there's something wrong with selling used games; they come because there's no competition, so they don't have to compete on price. Period.

Re:So what.

[Gadget_Guy]

As usual people on slashdot will cry over something they'll never intented to play anyway, just because it's DRM and about the used games market.

The problem is not whether you want to play that particular game, but that if this ploy works then it will be extended to other games - and eventually all games. When activation started for PC games I stayed away from those titles. Fine, I said, I will just move on to the next game. But then after a while, the next game (and the one after that) started doing the same thing. Now it is hard to find a big-name title that doesn't use it.

So what happens after people get used to this activation on installation? They start to implement the requirement to be online while playing the game to constantly activate. They have already started down that path, with the inevitable backlash. But then they just tie it to multiplay games, saving to the cloud, and DLC. Eventually this technology sneaks back into the main game. By then we will have already moved onto complaining about having to wear the guillotine on our penises while playing (or whatever the next stage is) and just accept that offline playing is dead.

That is why we need to complain, even for titles that we would not buy.

Re:So what.

[AmiMoJo]

game companies want to eliminate it because they somehow think people will magically have more money to spend.

To be fair there is some logic in that. If a person has £40 they can buy one new game or three second hand ones. If there are no second hand games then they are forced to buy new ones and the developer profits.

Of course it is still total bullshit, the second hand market is just a part of business. The developers could even get in on it if they wanted to, say by offering trade-ins/upgrades or making older games available for paid download.

Re:So what.

[xtracto]

That would be useful for Computer Games only if computer games were sold. Unfortunately, current computer games are actually licensed and what you acquire when buying such a game is just a license to use the developers' game (see, the game is still owned by the developer) in whatever way they like you to use it.

The only way in which the First sale Doctrine would have effect is if the game developers *sold* you the game... but they don't. To put it in a car analogy, you are free to sell a car you bought, but you are not free to sell a car you rented from Avis.

Re:So what.

[AmiMoJo]

What happens if your XBOX dies and you have to get a new one? Is it tied to the machine or your XBL account? If it is the XBL account then how many can use it at once? (lots of people have 5 or more accounts for their family)

It seems like however it works even the person who bought it new could easily be screwed by this DRM.

Re:So what.

[stonewallred]

I have o ask, what is this "buy" you speak of? Is it slang for downloaded off a torrent site?

Re:So what.

[PhilHibbs]

If I could buy a 'brand new' 2008 car whose owner's manual was wrinkled at 2008 car prices I would happily do it.

The gaming experience of a used title is identical as a new one the only difference being that Gamestop gets $20 in revenue and the developers get nothing.

That doesn't make it ok for a game publisher to artificially introduce a degradation just because the laws of physics are different to the laws of information. If you buy a car that's only 6 months old, you're getting a car that is better than if you buy a car that is 6 years old. How should that be modelled in this "emulated degradation" scheme? It's ridiculous. Your example is interesting, but by making piracy easier they would also make re-selling easier, you can't really allow one while disallowing the other.

Re:So what.

[DEmmons]

That's exactly it - I used to rely on bargain bins and the used games at Electronics Boutique for virtually all my gaming because otherwise I simply could not afford it. It seems Gamestop has put an end to those days, though - no more used PC games section in stores, and even the reduced prices seem about double what they used to be. I suppose at least there are humble bundles and sales on steam - and anyway being primarily a Linux user I appreciate the open source game efforts, even if only a few really get up there to where they are serious contenders (Spring deserves a mention here, though). Since I work non-profit, relying on donations, I feel I should keep my entertainment spending to a bare minimum, just enough to provide an outlet for stress. Video games are getting expensive.

Re:So what.

[I'm not really here]

The problem is, the first sale doctrine can arguably be only relevant to the CD and manual, because the wording used when selling these games to users is that you buy the game, but included is only one key for accessing their network, and once used, that key is locked to that user account, and cannot be used to create a new account. The company cannot stop you from selling your CD and manual, but if you've used the one time key, the buyer of your used game is out of luck (unless you give him the username, password, and all other required details to access the online account and essentially become you in the game world).
 
This is the same situation with school books that include a serial key for access to an online help system or online test preparation system... First Sale Doctrine covers the resale of the physical book and the physical CD, but the once and done serial key for access to the online system for 6 months is a consumable. Once consumed, it's no longer valid, so cannot be sent to the next person. First Sale Doctrine is still in effect (you can sell the non-consumed portion of the product), but the spirit of First Sale Doctrine has been buried under a pile of crap in both instances.

Re:So what.

[Verunks]

yeah also the EA online pass is exactly the same, I really don't see why the article say it's worse, if you are not a VIP in BC2 you don't get map packs, and guess what, on pc everybody is automatically a VIP because nobody sells used pc games

Re:So what.

[im3w1l]

It is important to take a stance on issues like this, because if companies didn't get bad press and less sales when they are up to no good, they have no incentive not to. The policies on games you don't play will soon come to games you do

Re:So what.

[peragrin]

But that's is just the point.

With this setup or variations of it you could sell the physical cd and be done with the game, however a couple of years later you see another cd of the same game Or download it again, and re activate your previous account.

This method is the beginning of the separation of game data, vs player data. Sure they charge you twice, however half the charge for each. This isn't really a bad idea as long as you don't need persistent connections in order to function. With SOCOM you might need a persistent connection which will ultimately limit sales, however if you only have to connect occasionally then it just might work.

Re:So what.

[robthebloke]

The competition is from consoles (where you are free to buy and sell second hand games without any of this DRM nonsense)

Re:So what.

[Schadrach]

So, they aren't "used" because they are retained in "working" condition (i.e. not necessarily in original packaging, not necessarily with manuals or secondary items, and possibly with some wear on the disc such as minor scratches, but still in good working condition)?

Do you only purchase used items if they no longer work or something?

Re:So what.

[soupforare]

Console gamers just haven't figured out yet that their consoles transformed wholly into unupgradable PCs this gen. Installation before play, patches, unskippable trailers for licensed tech, etc.

Re:So what.

[elrous0]

When PC games first started doing this sort of thing many years ago, I knew that it was only a matter of time before the secondary market for all media (console games, movies, and music too) would be killed. People in the past have laughed when I've said that. But now the used PC game market is dead and they're moving on to console games. It's only a matter or time before all music and movies come with some sort of DRM or registration requirements too (preventing you from reselling). The fact that internet connections for blu-ray players are now the norm should tell you something. Today it's just for bonus material on the blu-ray, tomorrow it will be for registration (before it will play).

Re:So what.

[geminidomino]

It's sort of like torrenting, but instead of seeding when you're done, you actually give the seeder MONEY (I know, right?!) instead. It's a pretty risky proposition though. The games usually don't work right, and a lot of times they come with wicked malware that's a bitch to clean off.

Re:So what.

[NeutronCowboy]

So your solution to the fact that once I buy something, I can do whatever I want with it, is to kill the second hand market for games? Nice.

Re:So what.

[Reapman]

Soo.... your response to Sony reducing online play for the used game market is to buy a hacked 360 that... can't go online?

BTW, did you know the PS3 is butt simple to wire up with Windows 7? And Linux? What does this part of your argument even have to do with Socom or used game markets? Or do you just get your fun by spouting off fanboy crap? Also, where can I buy a used X360 for $100? They're that cheap now? Maybe for a model without a hard drive and is the old, often RROD, model (the new Slim 360 is pretty sweet IMO)

Re:So what.

[LocalH]

No, none of that $40 you hand the retailer goes to the publisher. The retailer has already bought the games, THEY gave the publishers their money. The retailer is recouping their costs and adding on their profit margin (which is probably fairly slim, I'll be generous and say 5%).

Re:So what.

[spire3661]

I would like to add that even though its only $4 off, it DOES come with a 7 day return policy, something new games dont. Just pointing it out for accuracy.

Re:So what.

[spire3661]

Yes I would really like to fuck around with the constitution over SOFTWARE LICENSING AS A WHOLE.

Re:So what.

[non0score]

When it was just that, it wasn't a problem. Most of my old games would happily install on your machine if I sold you the disc and you typed in the key. The keys were stickers on the jewel cases, and there was none of this draconian "You can only install this game 5 times, and only on Tuesdays"

Really? Entering a code is equivalent to install this game 5 times and only on Tuesdays? I understanding it's tongue-in-cheek, but let's not get too carried away. You're comparing apples and computer games here.

Because it's not a subscription service that you could download the client for free anyway unless someone scammed you as in your example? You're comparing apples and steaks here.

Last I recall, WoW's latest expansions weren't free. The original WoW when it was released wasn't free either.

How do I access that profile once I sell the game? I bought it, right?

Yes, you bought the physical CD. No, you didn't buy the usable sticker. It's like buying the candy wrapper from someone else and complaining that it didn't come with the candy. Maybe if you didn't know that going into the transaction, that'd be something else.

It's not *now*. And therein lies the problem. It's an end run around the first sale doctrine by basically saying, "We didn't sell you that, we "licensed" it to you". Imagine if you couldn't buy a used car without paying Ford a "transfer fee" for the keys.
Personally ... I've never sold a game in my life, or bought one used for that matter ... the few bucks just isn't worth the hassle. But many, many people do - because they can't afford to buy everything they want new. There is a fairly huge secondary market with console games, and the game companies want to eliminate it because they somehow think people will magically have more money to spend.

And therein lies the misinterpretation of the first sale doctrine. The game studio sold you a game with a $15 voucher. And what's wrong with that?
I'm not against used games, especially the single player component. But think about it this way: why should Gamestop profit (hugely) from these sales while the original content makers don't? How is that helping the people making the games for you in the first place? How does that logic even make sense? If anything, you should be criticizing the incorporated used games sellers for profiting with such a high margin. You should demand that their used games come down in price by at least the same cost as the "replacement voucher" (if it's used up...and it's up to them to find out if it's used or not). That way, the public (you) wins, the game makers win, and the people that shouldn't be winning don't win.

Re:So what.

[Anonymous Coward]

There already is: US Constitution, Amendment #9. "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Re:So what.

[sqlrob]

No, it doesn't.

They can simply say "Servers will be shut off at such and such a date". See: EA.

Re:So what.

[IICV]

The games usually don't work right, and a lot of times they come with wicked malware that's a bitch to clean off.

Sad but true. I've been bit by malware from actual games that I bought with money more often than I have from pirated releases.

Look, just because I use virtual CD-Rom drives doesn't mean I'm a pirate, okay? Some of us have MSDN subscriptions.

Re:So what.

[giantism_strikes]

If they can't keep up the cost of the server, then they should stop supporting it (Halo 2 anybody).

Re:So what.

[IICV]

So the game devs are jealous of all the perfectly legal abusive profits that Gamestop is making? Answer is obvious: open their own stores, and compete on used game prices. If there were competition in the used games market, Gamestop wouldn't be able to charge their insane markups (and they are insane).

That is almost exactly what Steam is doing, except without the "used games" part - instead of buying a game for cheap second-hand months later, they sell you a cheap digital download months later.

And I've never seen prices in a physical store that can even match Steam prices most of the time, much less actually beat them.

Re:So what.

[operagost]

I guess what we need are laws (state of federal; preferably the former) defining what a "license" is. You see, the license analogy seems to work well until you get a bad disc. If you tried to get the company to replace the disc (outside of a 30-day warranty period that seems to be standard on the packaging) at cost of materials and shipping, I can almost guarantee they'll demand you buy another copy. All we need are a few people to be told that and take it to court. They'll have to decide whether you're buying or licensing. I think that their BS about not guaranteeing the game will work on your system might come to an end, as well, because I could see how licensing a non-working product and refusing to rectify it or void the contract could be seen as fraud.

Re:So what.

[Omestes]

Keep in mind that the media is scratched in at least 80% of cases, so it does lose value.

Say what you may about Gamestop, but 90% of the used games I've bought from them were in very good condition. I've gotten one or two bad things from them over the years (the worst being a copy of FFIX with a buggy bootleg copy 2nd disk), but generally the actual disks are in good condition. The cases may be damaged, their damn sticker drive me completely insane, but the games are playable.

As for shirts, maps, and manuals... I could care less. I'd buy a full retail game that had none of these for full price. Actually, I do this all the time, since my primary source for new games is Steam these days. All of this, sans t-shirt, is available online. I've never actually worn a t-shirt I got from a game box, if anything screamed "unfashionable nerd" it would be that.

I buy around 6, new, full-priced, games a year. Most of those are PC games, with no practical resale value in the first place. For the console games... I pretty much never sell them back, I'm a fan of collecting media for the future (I still have my C64, NES, Dreamcast, PS1 and 2, and Atari 2600 and 5600, with full libraries of games). But I generally only buy games a bit after release when there are decent (non-shill) reviews and game play videos. I generally also only buy games from publishers/developers I trust (Blizzard, Bioware, etc...).

Sometimes I just buy old games for the sake of collections, and not necessarily to play at this moment. I recently got every remake Final Fantasy game for the GBA and DS, just so I can play through them on the patio while drinking coffee and smoking. I'll probably play through them all once in the course of a couple years, and then they'll end up on a rack in my, work-in-progress, retro-gaming closet. I might dust them all off in 5-10 years, when their unavailable to purchase anymore, for another round. I see gaming as somewhat an investment.

But then again I'm not a fan of most AAA games. I could give two shits about SOCOM, or Halo... I'm not a teen anymore, so I don't need to be partaking in the most popular of popular culture to fit in. A game has to be brilliant to compete with the vast back catalog of games sitting around.

The last new game I bought was Fallout: New Vegas on Steam.

Re:So what.

[ShakaUVM]

>>You'd really want to fuck around with The Constitution over video game sales ?

It's not just video game sales. The Doctrine of First Sale has been under attack in a lot of different venues.

Re:So what.

[scot4875]

Either way, the profit made in the used market is going toward video game stores and not Sony, and that's what they want.

Sure, but there's no profit for retailers in the new game/hardware market. The margins are so thin that most game stores can't afford to *not* have the used section, because that's where all their profits come from.

If the video game publishers want to kill off the used game market, they'd better make sure they're happy with selling only from Wal Mart, Best Buy, Hastings, etc, because it will simultaneously kill off the Gamestops and the mom & pops. For that to be sustainable, they'll need to both lower their prices at retail, and raise the margins for the retailers so that they can stay in business.

--Jeremy

Re:So what.

[Omestes]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm tired of paying $50-60 for new games.

$60 isn't that bad. Considering that a new NES or SNES game cost around $60 back in the 90s, adjusting for inflation games are damn cheap. The price remains the same, while inflation continues.

I'm guessing here, I don't feel like doing the math, but a new PS3/360 game would cost around $35-40 in 1990 dollars.

A game that plays well is worth more than any semi-interactive movie.

Good games were always rare. If good gameplay was easy, EVERYTHING would be brilliant. Also, right now the trend is towards casual games on tablets and phones (and the Wii), where graphics are secondary. The "simple" game market is booming... Go see the app store, the android market, xbox live arcade, etc... Either that or just replay old classics, I'm sure you missed quite a few over the years.

Re:So what.

[Omestes]

Sony Certified Used Games.

Socom XII: Shootin' Things, new: $60
Socom XII: Shootin' Things, Certified(tm) used: $50 (with a 10 day return for same product policy)
Socom XII: Shootin' Things, non-certified used from Sleezy Johns Used Game Emporium: $30 (with a 30 day return policy).

Re:So what.

[scot4875]

You're technically correct! That's the best kind of correct!

--Jeremy

Re:So what.

[sabt-pestnu]

Is it still "butt simple" to wire up a PS3 with Linux or Windows 7 once it has been updated to version 3.21 of the firmware? No, really. I want to know. Can you do it without Sony getting all in your face about it?

Re:So what.

[Reapman]

Yes... my PS3 is fully updated - it still sees my Media Centre without issue. I haven't heard of any issues either from anyone else that uses it like that.

Not sure why they'd get all in your face about it when they didn't before... Other OS was never required for DLNA/uPNP connectivity.

Re:So what.

[Cederic]

But now the used PC game market is dead

And new PC games cost far less than new console games. And many PC gamers wait for the 75% off bargains on Steam (or equivalent reductions in first-sale prices).

PC gaming is actually pretty cheap these days, even if you're buying new release games.

Re:So what.

[neotokyo]

Sew you are saying they have a hole in the garment called used games? Maybe they should stitch that up... =)

Re:So what.

[BrianRoach]

And therein lies the misinterpretation of the first sale doctrine. The game studio sold you a game with a $15 voucher. And what's wrong with that?

Because they didn't. They figured out they could artificially restrict resale by selling me part of a game while "licensing" me the other part. With no benefit to me.

You keep trying to make the argument that this is like a MMO subscription service; it's not. I wasn't paying for this on a monthly basis as a service. Once I purchase it there is no recurring charge for service.

When I sell the game, I can no longer use the part they claim I don't own but I can't transfer it either, even though my license would never have expired otherwise. Because it was a one time fee you can't argue that the online portion has a cost that needs to be recouped - they already did that by charging me for it and upon selling the game, I can no longer use it. It's a net zero gain/loss in terms of resource utilization.

And here's what the effect will be on the used game market; sellers get hosed the most, and used buyers to a lesser extent. Resellers for the most part won't even care. Oh, and of course the game companies make money for nothing, which is their intent.

With this scheme, a game is instantly devalued $15 the moment you purchase it. If you're someone who sells their games when finished with them, this now means you aren't going to get as much for it when you sell it. The reseller will simply offer $15 less than they would have for the game so they are able to sell it to a used buyer who knows there's another $15 to be paid. They *might* split the difference, splitting the cost to both the seller and buyer, but they're still going to make their money. How is this a "win" for anyone?

As for why should gamestop profit hugely? For the same reason used car dealerships profit hugely by buying a car from someone and then reselling it at a higher cost (often with little more than some paperwork and a car wash involved). They provide a service for which people are willing to pay. That whole free market thing, you know?

Re:So what.

[Jiro]

And this game will happily allow you to play it. You just don't get the extra goodies.

There is no difference between "extra goodies" and "part of the game" except to the marketing department. Any plan to limit part of the game can be easily sold by relabelling the remainder of the game as "the game" and the limited part "extra content". It's just describing it in a more customer-soothing way.

It's like pre-ordering a game. If you pre-order a game, you get extra goodies with them often times.

If you are getting extra goodies with preorders, the company still wants to be able to sell the game to non-preorder customers, so they have an incentive not to relabel too much of the game as "extra goodies". If the company is selling the "extra goodies" all the time, they no longer have this incentive.

Re:So what.

[elrous0]

It's not nearly as cheap as buying used console games. Just a few months from release, I can usually get a big console game used on Amazon for $20. If it's a year or more out, I can usually get it for less than $10. Right now, for example I can buy Gears of War 2 for $6 used on Amazon, Mass Effect 2 for $11, and Bioshock 2 for $9. Not sure if Steam ever gets down that cheap or not. But I doubt it consistently beats the used market, especially for big releases.

With PC games I never have the option of buying them used, of course. I still do (for now) with console games.

Re:So what.

[Cederic]

General price, no, not that low.

If you wait though, Steam will drop the price on a game for a weekend, a week, or sometimes just a day. It takes patience and being logged on, but you can pick up enough bargains to keep you going.

E.g. Bioshock 2 is currently £14 - but it's been available at 50% in the past month, which brings it close to your $9 mark.

Last week I bought Max Payne and Max Payne 2 for a combined £2.50. Second hand on Amazon would've cost me £1.23... + £4.06 in delivery fees. Less convenient, higher price.

I would rather have a thriving second-hand market available too, but given the choice I'm finding Steam extremely convenient and (if you're patient) extremely good value for money.

Re:So what.

[Kelbear]

I envision a future where games can only be played on ONE profile.

To use the disc at all on a second profile, you'll have to pay 5-15 bucks.

Given that semantics and distribution technology can change to fit the market conditions, the bottom line comes down to: What is the consumer willing to pay? What is the seller willing to accept?

Really, I appreciate the developer/publisher concern, people are playing the game and they haven't gotten any money from them. The developers/publishers failed to address the used sale market. They will adapt, and we will decide if we like the new offer, and whether it becomes the new status quo.

With an added fee to unlock a used game, the price of that used game will have to go down in response to the slack in the quantity demanded. (This is because the added fee effectively sets the price point higher, reducing quantity sold, and with the unlock fee fixed, the used disc price will have to adjust to reach equilibrium again on the supply/demand curve.) In the end, we might end up with a $20 used game selling for $10 for the disc, and $10 to unlock. Then the game store gets a cut, the developer gets a cut, and I still get the benefit of a discount from retail price. Of course, I don't think we'll see such a neat change happen, most likely the overall price of a used game will rise overall. It just won't rise by the gross added price of the unlock fee, it'll rise by the net added price of the unlock fee minus the decrease in used disc sale price. New game sales may suffer a bit as well since salvage value to the initial buyer will be reduced.

Charge to unlock isn't here yet only because the market needs to be trained to accept it. DLC, and multiplayer unlock fees are how the market perceptions will be changed to accept used game unlock fees.

The game companies don't have the power to mandate these things, they can only offer these changes. The power is really in the hands of the consumers who decide whether to accept or reject these propositions. And people have shown that they are willing to pay these amounts for access to locked content.

I'm curious as to how Gamefly's or game exchange markets will continue when the used game unlock fees become standard. They'll still be offering value in that the user still doesn't have to pay the price of the disc, but I wonder if it will be enough to justify the same monthly fee.

Re:So what.

[Rich0]

Next thing you know they'll be doing this for single-player games as well.

Disclaimer on the side of box:

Thank you for buying 1 copy of the Duke Nukem Forever Installer! After installing the installer follow the instructions to register your product online. The first person to register each purchased installer gets a free copy of Duke Nukem Forever as a bonus! You are of course welcome to re-sell the Installer to anybody else that you want, but the recipient will only be able to use the Installer and not the game, as this is all that is included in the cost of this product.

The boxes will be sold next to $500 Giants hats that come with free superbowl tickets.

Re:So what.

[Americium]

I was trying to make the point that digital media is different from analog products. Cars and other real things degrade over time my used car is of lower quality than a new one.

To me, all the packaging and manuals are irrelevant, the website usually has manuals and videos and all that. The 0's and 1's are the identical and not used.

Re:So what.

[Americium]

Are you sure that they can't have a used section, or did you just pull that out of your ass.

The gamestops by me encourage people to buy used games and return them when they are done. It's like renting for free with no profit at all.

Considering gamestops and other video game stores have places in a mall, where rent is insanely high, I think the margins are much much bigger than you think.

Re:So what.

[vegiVamp]

I pretty much never buy new games - they're just too damn expensive. Got the "latest" Prince - the happy-colour one - used, recently, and finished in under 12 hours. I even got a damn achievement for it. I'm sorry, 12 hours of gameplay isn't worth 60€, to me. It's not like the thing has a huge replay value. Oh, there's apparently some extra bit of content, the references towards which were already installed, but the game sends me online to buy it. I'm sorry - you expect people to pay for a game, and then pay again for the second half of the same game? Not going to happen.

Provide me with a full game, and make it a good game, and I'll happily buy extra content. Assassin's Creed did that, for me. I bought it used, played the shit out of it, and then got all the extra missions I could find. Had there not been a secondhand market, I'd have never bought the game, so now they sold DLC to someone who otherwise wouldn't have given them any money at all. I'd say that's a win for them.

AC is still in the drawer, and if there should be new content, I may well buy it. Prince is going back where it came from, being sold off towards what will hopefully be a better game.

There is no difference whatsoever between used books and used games - online gaming excepted. Don't drink the kool-aid.

Re:So what.

[Americium]

Big difference, physical books degrade quickly over time, especially paperbacks.

Digital 0's and 1's don't degrade at all. Look at Steam, you can't sell old games, but older games prices are slashed, and all the profit is funneled to Steam, no middlemen.

Also, used books don't require Sony to sell me subsidized hardware first, nobody incurred a loss from me being able to buy a used book.

Re:So what.

[tompaulco]

Seems to me like a good answer, and one that is used in other games, and arguably, in this game, is to charge separately for the account versus the software. You can sell the game new with "1 Free Account!", and then if someone resells it, the buyer can buy a new account, or buy your account from you if you have amassed interesting tidbits in your account. Used buyers who are not interested in online play do not have to buy an account at all.

Re:So what.

[BoberFett]

Most people have a limited budget for entertainment. If someone can spend $60 on a new game, sell it for $30, and buy a second game for $60 their total outlay is $90. Not being able to resell a game will mean they can no longer buy a second game.

This just isn't that complicated.

Re:So what.

[BoberFett]

People that sell used games are potential customers for new games. Not being able to sell the old game affects their ability to purchase another new game.

Publishers can certainly choose to gamble on this if they want, I just wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't end the way they like.

Re:So what.

[Gadget_Guy]

And new PC games cost far less than new console games

Actually, new PC games have always been cheaper than console games. I have always assumed it was the extra cut that the console makers took from each game.

But with all the bleating about PC games losing billions of dollars due to piracy, it seemed strange that they would not make the games cost the same as consoles to make up this alleged lost.

PC gaming is actually pretty cheap these days, even if you're buying new release games.

I agree. Your comments about Steam (here and another message) were true. There are some great bargains to be had. I usually do not pay more than $5 for a title from Steam (or $7.50 for recent triple-A titles on sales). But I pay more for Indie games to support them.

I can't help but wonder how long they will keep up these sales that reduce games down to a few of dollars (like the recent Max Payne deal). It seems to be pretty unsustainable pricing to me. Already there seems to be fewer of those huge reductions to be had (or those that get reduced are often the usual sale items that we already have nabbed in the past).

Re:So what.

[mysidia]

People that sell used games are potential customers for new games. Not being able to sell the old game affects their ability to purchase another new game.

Not really. Players selling at a used game shop get pennies on the dollar compared to the new price of the game.

Eliminating the ability to buy used also removes a financial incentive for people to forego the 'new' release and hold out until they can get it used for cheap.

It eliminates not buying it new as an option that can still provide the game player (delayed) gratification. With buying used for cheap off the table; buying it new now, later, or not obtaining it, become the only real options.

And if they opt not to buy and want the game, the demand still exists (not met by the used game), hence, they will buy it, when they can afford it.

Either the player saves up more money, or the manufacturer comes up with a price adjustment scheme where old releases are decreased in price, eventually... with care to stage it as to avoid marring the market for the new release.

At least then the (reduced) amount from buying an old product goes to the manufacturer instead of getting pocketed by a used games shop.

Re:So what.

[Cederic]

Max Payne made a profit ten years ago. Any sale now above the cost of hosting the download and adding a store entry/discount ad is pure profit. Even without that it helps the network effect - i log into steam to play max payne, it increases the chance of further future sales.

I suspect there's some serious data mining and analysis happening server-side to understand steam customer behaviours and maximise revenue. Often the impressively cheap game offer is the max revenue opportunity, and that's likely to continue

Re:So what.

[madhi19]

And this is where I don't get the Game industry approach if I sell my old games it likely the money made by selling them will go to a new game! Unless am broke money that I spend in my gaming budget will stay in my gaming budget if I get a return. The car industry understand that very well one thing they advertise is the resale value it also ranked in the blue book.

Re:So what.

[Cardhu]

what?
economics 101 - if there is no competition, prices rise

But there is competition. Competition is Sony's biggest problem The real economic dynamic here is increasing prices without increased demand will suppress rather than increase sales.

Re:So what.

[pokyo]

This is false.

When I develop a game, I don't think about how I can't wait for someone to buy the printed disc, I think about how I can't wait for someone to enjoy the content. Likewise, when you buy the game, you are not buying it to look at the disc, but to enjoy its content. The reason that this content is on a disc coincides with the currently available technology to distribute the content.

Like I said before (in other posts) I don't blame people for selling their games. They are now just pieces of plastic instead of a colourful box of goodies.

Re:So what.

[ArsenneLupin]

It doesn't really end up working quite as slowly as you imply. Typically I see the $4 discounted used copies of a brand spanking new game within a couple of days.

I'll risk a guess, and suppose that in these cases the original buyer probably just did a quick copy for himself before he sold the game. Hence my conditional "...unless piracy was also involved...". If used-games outlets are used "honestly", there will be substantial delays until new titles will be available, and my original reasoning will apply.

Re:So what.

[Celestialwolf]

Actually, people who resell games, books, cars, etc. Do negatively affect those respective industries, but it's not like that's something that can be avoided. Companies that are still around, however, have learned to adapt. For example, college textbook publishers are constantly releasing newer versions of the same textbooks (with revisions/layout changes here and there to justify it). This forces students to buy new books regardless of how many of the old version are still saturating the market. For the automotive industry, they come out with new models every year that generally have improvements over prior-year models.

With videogames, it used to be that they simply raised the new purchase price. I remember (not too long ago) when the major title games went from $49.99 new to $59.99 new. That's because they only see revenue from the first sale, and the previous price wasn't enough to justify the cost of making the game in the first place. This is a good idea because not only do they still see all the revenue from the initial sale, but they also get another piece of that in subsequent re-sells.

The only problem I can see with this is if people start just buying the $15 license and use them on pirated installs...

Re:So what.

[Doctor_Jest]

The "service without a service" has nothing to do with the game. They want to treat you as the buyer like a licensee but they don't want to have the overhead that goes with that. (replacing media, guaranteeing a level of effectiveness in connections etc.) They want you to _think_ you have a license, when in reality, you bought a hunk of plastic you can sell onward and they can do nothing about it. This "charging for multiplayer" is their way of doing an end-round of the First Sale Doctrine... and thus cutting out the Gamestops and Amazons of the world... Plain and simple, they don't like used. And they want to destroy it with a hugely crushing blow.... how? Without expensive litigation (and proving the "service license" model) they are going to withhold part of the functionality of a game unless you but it new from a store. (Which gives them a cut of sales...)

Re:So what.

[petermgreen]

My understanding with XBL content (haven't purchased any myself yet) is that you can use it with any account on the XBOX it was purchased/activated on and with the account it was purchased on on any xbox. i'm not sure if there is a way to change the "primary xbox" for a peice of content or not.

Sony use a different technique, you can play it using any account on a PS3 that is authorised to play it but the number of PS3s that can be authorised for content purchased/activated using a given PSN account is limited.

Hmmm, well better than alternatives...

[AlienIntelligence]

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

Re:Hmmm, well better than alternatives...

[X0563511]

It's a compromise*. The problem is that we just want our way, we don't want to compromise.

* - I didn't say it was a good one...

Re:Hmmm, well better than alternatives...

[jimicus]

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw.

Right now, the "unreasonable man" is the games industry. The unreasonable man may not always succeed in his attempts to adapt the world to himself. Indeed, he may fail 95% of the time. But the other 5% of the time, progress is made - and it's made in the direction dictated by the unreasonable man.

Re:Hmmm, well better than alternatives...

[Ash Vince]

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

Any online player would be insane to buy a used game anyway. The previous owner could be selling it as they have been caught using a hack and banned.

So how much...

[Leslie43]

"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.

Re:So how much...

[MeNeXT]

It will affect initial sales also. Some people do not have the capacity to buy more games without selling their old games. Since the value of resale is reduced their purchasing power is also reduced and then the trumpets complaining of the PIRATES will emerge demanding more compensation and stiffer laws.

I spend less with mainstream and more with indies due to DRM. I moved from PC gaming to console due to the cheats only to realize that it's the poor quality of the games that makes it feel that people are cheating. Now it's mainly none DRM indie games for me. I'm tired of all the marketing which leads to endless frustration fighting with DRM.

Re:So how much...

[Ephemeriis]

It effectively destroys the second hand value and they know it.

Of course it does, and that's the whole point.

Until fairly recently you could either pay $50+ for a new game, or wait a few months and buy the exact same game for $20 or less. Exact same content. No differences at all. You just have to wait a couple months to play it.

That was terrific for the buyer... But lousy for the publisher - because the publisher saw absolutely nothing of that second, $20 sale. That $20 sale was entirely between the buyer and whoever it was bought from - Gamestop, or some guy in the dorms, or eBay, or whatever.

These new penalties are to ensure that the publisher gets their cut of any used game sales. And, hopefully, to make used games unappealing enough that folks will be willing to pay for new games.

Re:So how much...

[Rich0]

Uh, publishers don't need a cut of used game sales, just like Ford doesn't need a cut of used car sales. Instead Ford will save $10 on the car by putting in a rubber timing belt that you'll pay one of their dealers $500 to replace every 90k miles or whatever...

Maybe they just need to build software that breaks. Oh wait, they already do that - at least when the next big OS upgrade comes along.

Re:So how much...

[Ephemeriis]

Uh, publishers don't need a cut of used game sales

Of course they don't need a cut of used game sales... But they want one. And that's all that matters.

Re:So how much...

[Rich0]

And they can get it after I have my flying car...

My PS3...

[Anonymous Coward]

...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.

Re:My PS3...

[Americium]

They still let you buy used games, I see that as something that will soon disappear in our digital age.

Re:My PS3...

[Americium]

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.

The second person didn't purchase another game. That's $50 lost, or if you wanted to spend $15 on an arcade game, but bought a used game instead, that's $15 lost.

Re:My PS3...

[CronoCloud]

Damn Sony. Your consoles are overpriced. You've reduced their features of the new ones.

They reduced the features on the new slims to placate the people who said they were overpriced.

I call BS!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:I call BS!

[Culture20]

Come on. Who would pay GM to 'unlock' a car stereo system when you just purchased a pre-owned car?

No, but you'll pay somebody for a new warranty since the original is probably non-transferable.

Re:I call BS!

[xehonk]

> No, but you'll pay somebody for a new warranty since the original is probably non-transferable.
If that's the case where you live, you should try to get that fixed instead of using it as an argument for disencouraging sales of used goods.

Re:I call BS!

[Dahamma]

What? Original warranties (actually, even extended warranties) for cars follow the car, not the owner. Bad example.

Re:I call BS!

[tepples]

No, but you'll pay somebody for a new warranty since the original is probably non-transferable

If that's the case where you live, you should try to get that fixed

How can a customer get that fixed when all sellers have decided to make warranties non-transferable? Are you talking about starting your own car company, running for federal office, or something I haven't thought of? If the last, please provide details.

Re:I call BS!

[Lehk228]

lobby state legislators, something like that would be a state law not federal

Re:I call BS!

[SharpFang]

Somehow consumer lobbies all over Europe managed to get a warranty to be attached to a device, not a customer.

You buy an item, the shopkeeper fills in the warranty card with the device serial number, you pack it up in the box with all the warranties you have, if you sell, you dig up the warranty card and hand it along with the device. Nobody asks your name or ID.

And unless the seller sells used, known-broken item (and you are clearly informed this IS broken), you get the warranty by default. One month for used, usually a year for new. Sometimes more, rarely less. You may purchase extended warranty or insurance, but you MUST receive a manufacturer warranty with a new purchase. The fact you can buy new hardware in the US, find it broken at home and be helpless because you didn't purchase a warranty separately seems extremely weird to europeans. Unthinkable. Usually this is also accompanied by a 3-day surety period, when you can have a faulty device replaced instead of repaired if you return it within that period (or money back if the device cannot be replaced, because e.g. they've been sold out). This too is attached to proof of purchase, no need for ID of any kind.

Nope, warranty attached to person is a US oddity, not world standard.

Re:I call BS!

[JoeSchmoe999]

BUT... the original owner gets a refund on unused parts of his service contract. Which btw is only sold in 1 year contracts. Will Sony give back the original seller the unused portion of his 1 year of online when he sells his game? They are, after all, getting that money back from the second user.

Re:I call BS!

[Culture20]

What State? What Nation?

Re:I call BS!

[Dahamma]

New car manufacturer warranties are most definitely transferable in the US, the EU, Japan, and I'm sure many other countries. In fact, manufacturer warranties are usually identified/tracked by the VIN, not the owner. Some manufacturers have "lifetime" or "100k" powertrain, etc. warranties that only apply to the original owner, but those are mostly marketing anyway. I suppose it's possible that a random car manufacturer in some country with no consumer protection or lemon laws sells new cars without a warranty, but this post was talking about GM which certainly doesn't do that...

Extended warranties depend on the terms of the warranty you buy, but I have yet to be offered one in the US that isn't transferable (the ones I have been offered and/or bought on used cars have been through a dealership). Last car I bought used had a year on the original warranty, and 3 more years on an extended warranty, that both transferred to me.

That said, the vast majority of used cars are sold after more than 5 years, ie the warranty has expired, but that has nothing to do with warranty transfer...

of course, no problems if you don't buy sony

[Dan667]

and with all the crap sony is pulling suing people and hobbling the ps3 why would you?

Re:of course, no problems if you don't buy sony

[Amarantine]

It's not just Sony doing this. EA sells these "online passes" for $10 too, for example to 2nd hand buyers of Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit. It is not just annoying for the used game market, but it also makes it harder to return a new game to the store if you don't like it. I have the luck that the people in my local game shop know me and trust me when i say i didn't enter the key of the supplied online pass, but i might not be so lucky if i buy it at another store. EA could have used a layer of that silver scratch-off stuff, but they don't. It makes me more careful when buying games, which in the end results in me buying less games.

A bad approach

[Dyinobal]

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.

Re:A bad approach

[Dyinobal]

Damn it's late and I'm tired, lets try again.

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 new game 40 bucks, but the net 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.

Plus with a lower price on a new game, they are more likely to get exposure to a wider audience, with the possibility for more twenty dollar multi player purchases than if they simply did it to used game owners.

Re:A bad approach

[Dyinobal]

They can be irrational if they want, bottom line the company wants to cut out game stop. If they do it in a way that makes it cheaper for me the gamer to buy their games brand new with all the content then I'm happy. Cash is king baby. So long as it's clear you're buying only single player content with the option to buy multi player later. I see no harm in it.

Re:A bad approach

[billcopc]

Dude, if it were just about cutting out gamestop, I'd be all for it. There are few things I find more ridiculous in this world than the practice of selling a used title for $5.00 less than the new one, except perhaps the witless sycophants who actually buy them. The 3-for-1 trade-in deal is also pretty freakin' atrocious.

But the reality is that the game industry is adopting Sony's movie and music industry practices. More money, more profiteering parasites at the executive level, and more customer abuse and FUD to justify the egregious corruption.

Re:A bad approach

[cgenman]

The funny thing is, this wouldn't be an issue at all if digital copies of games had at least price parity with hard copies. But right now the downloadable full retail titles on PSN, for example, generally maintain full list price while Amazon.com has many retailers willing to sell far below that. If a new physical copy was 60, and a new digital copy was 40, the re-sale market would dry up rather quickly. As it stands, they're trying to use digital to both raise the average price floor and remove second-hand sales. That doesn't seem like a winning strategy.

Re:A bad approach

[lennier1]

This would also offer the benefit that people who don't want to play in multiplayer mode don't have to pay for it.
But, the gaming industry being who they are, they'd still demand too much for the singleplayer version.

Re:A bad approach

[drinkypoo]

There are few things I find more ridiculous in this world than the practice of selling a used title for $5.00 less than the new one, except perhaps the witless sycophants who actually buy them.

The value of a once-purchased game is the same as the value of a twice-purchased game. You're the witless one if you're paying an extra $5 you don't need to pay. Ever tried actually selling games and getting new ones? What a massive PITA. That's why I took a massive stack of 360 games that suck (meaning they're hard to resell, people will just laugh at them at the flea market or on CL) to gamestop for trade-in. I got twenty bucks off Wii Sports Resort and consider myself a winner.

Whether this is fair or not...

[dmomo]

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?

Re:Whether this is fair or not...

[kevinmenzel]

Or how many less new games those people will buy because they're getting less income from selling their used games?

All they have to do is wait.

[dmomo]

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.

Re:All they have to do is wait.

[Hahnsoo]

Nah, downloading will be the new standard, but for folks who don't like to wait and want to buy a physical copy, they'll have USB drives that are read-only which you can buy at your local WalGameStopBestMart. They'll call them "cartridges". Oh. Wait. Dammit.

Re:All they have to do is wait.

[Damase]

"I like my hard copies, and you'll pry them from my crusty gout-ridden hands"

Amen.

Re:All they have to do is wait.

[mehrotra.akash]

No, hard media is not going away.

Only in markets like US and EU, where broadband is mature will download media take over.

Re:All they have to do is wait.

[BrianRoach]

I buy everything on Steam, and only when it's on sale. I haven't paid full retail for a game in years. Most of the time I buy it at 50% off.

Re:All they have to do is wait.

[Americium]

I also don't understand how it is 'used', it's digital. The 0's and 1's should be the same as the original, and if they aren't, it's not 'used', it's corrupt.

Re:All they have to do is wait.

[nickmalthus]

I look at DLC from a macroeconomic perspective which is why I never purchase any. With physical disks game producers create property that can be individually owned and resold thus creating tangible wealth. With DLC no property changes hands and thus the consumer is at the complete mercy of some third party as to what they are allowed to do with their fiat license. Certainly suppliers such as sony lust after such an arrangement since they can resell access to the same content over and over to the same consumer when the next generation of hardware is put on the market with zero competition from and reseller market. However, this runs completely contrary to the intent of intellectual property laws whose sole purpose is to advance the creation of NEW sciences and arts. Perhaps spending five dollars here and there for one time use licenses like a movie ticket makes sense but to spend hundreds of dollars on worthless content (DLC is usually locked to a single piece of hardware) is foolish in my opinion.

Re:All they have to do is wait.

[Americium]

I loath my hard copies, perhaps it has something to do with my xbox360 and my laziness. I just don't see the appeal to getting up, finding the right cd, hoping it's not scratched, then putting it in, waiting for it to load, and that's not even the worst part, the xbox's DVD drive spins so fast my floor shakes.

Almost none of the games for my old systems work anymore. The cds for ps1 are past their lifetimes, and my NES games have no hope in ever working again. Please, let me have some legitimate digital copies that I can backup. Key them to me so only I can make copies, whatever. Apparently the file-sharing community has no problem making digital copies, and hell, they are easier to find than legitimate paid downloads.

I only purchase games I can dl straight to the HD, but for some weird reason, they are always slow to release digital copies. I suppose all that extra revenue from not paying for brick and mortar stores clogs their brain, or more likely, they deem it necessary to employ these incompetent people at Gamestops all around the nation (who create the very used game market I thought they so disliked). Perhaps the fear of those video game nerds/sale associates going into IT is too much to look past.

Re:All they have to do is wait.

[Rizimar]

I don't know how soon that day will be coming. There are plenty of budget developers who make games and sell them for cheap at retail stores (things I've never heard of being sold at Target, Best Buy, Office Max, Half-Price Books brand new, etc).

This kind of availability is advantageous to these publishers mainly for visibility. Products that exist in a brick-and-mortar building will be seen by anyone who shops in that section of the store. Someone with a couple of bucks might pick up a budget title for the hell of it. Or they might be buying it for someone as a gift. Or they're not avid gamers who don't own consoles and don't keep up with the latest games. Whatever the reason, the option is there, and some people will choose to go with it.

If every existing publisher, major or minor, simultaneously decided to release games online only one day, someone else would come along to take advantage of that empty shelf space in the video game sections of every store that had them.

Re:All they have to do is wait.

[dmomo]

For now. But, over time even to the last mile, it will be more economical to transmit media rather than haul it.

Re:All they have to do is wait.

[mehrotra.akash]

I live in India, and from news reports it does seem like broadband is mature in US with 100mbps fiber connections and download quotas above 250GB being popular, as compared to 512kbps ADSL connections, dropping to 256kbps after 8GB as a baseline here.

Re:All they have to do is wait.

[mjwx]

No, hard media is not going away.

Only in markets like US and EU, where broadband is mature will download media take over.

Australia is one of those markets (well almost, NBN will ensure it though) and physical media is going nowhere because the online alternatives are more expensive. When a new release on Steam cost $70-80 to buy and then 24 hours to download, this is compared to $50-60 to buy from Hong Kong and 1 week for shipping. If I'm going to wait 24 hours, I'll wait 1 week.

Re:All they have to do is wait.

[hairyfeet]

Cox cable is field testing 36Gb residential caps and once they roll it out nationwide and see they don't lose their entire market (because most simply have nowhere to go) you WILL see Comcast and others adopt it. See how many games you get at 36Gb with $1.50 per Gb going over why don't you?

You seem to be forgetting this is America, aka "Greed is good" land. While Asia and the EU are rolling out new pipes our ISP are figuring out ways to stick you on the short bus to the Info superhighway so they can maintain their 300% annual CEO and board bonuses. Didn't you get the memo?

Re:All they have to do is wait.

[antdude]

Ditto. I prefer physical as well. Downloading takes too long especially on slow Internet connections and uses too much disk spaces these days.

Re:All they have to do is wait.

[Cwix]

Most of the country doesn't have those speeds, in fact there is often only one provider offering 5mb. Nonetheless that is still better then 512k.

Re:All they have to do is wait.

[CronoCloud]

Almost none of the games for my old systems work anymore. The cds for ps1 are past their lifetimes, and my NES games have no hope in ever working again.

There are plenty of people who take better care of their games and systems that have ALL their PSone games working. They're pressed, you know, don't be tossing them around like frisbees, keep them in their cases when you're not playing them and they should last a VERY long time.

Re:All they have to do is wait.

[Americium]

I thought the lifespan of pressed cds was between 10-25 years. Considering ps1 is already 17yrs old, it is a problem.

Re:All they have to do is wait.

[CronoCloud]

You are mistaken, pressed CD's aren't vulnerable to the problems burned CD's are...they should last longer than you do. If your information was correct, the early Audio CD releases would not be working.

Re:All they have to do is wait.

[pokyo]

When I was young I remember going to KMart and looking at all the games, deciding what to buy. I only had 20 dollars and this was actually my first game purchase. I ended up getting a 5 in 1 collection with some top games (but they were probably already a few years old, I didn't know any better). I read through all the manuals and the physical contents of the packages were, to me, just as valuable to the games itself. I still have all of it.

Most of the games that I own are in giant cereal box sized packaging, have manuals that describe the game moreso than describe controls. Publishers got cheap and kept shrinking packaging so that most of value now lies in the digital content. I like physical copies as well, but to be honest they are nothing compared to what I have from when I was a teenager. The value was in the manual, box, and artwork, not the floppy or CD or DVD. Publishers put themselves in this position and the publishers either need to put value back into owning the packaging, or making used games less desirable. Seems like option 2 is where it is at, which makes me sad.

I don't blame people for not recognizing the value of holding onto a pieces of plastic in a flimsy plastic case...the value just isn't there. That being said, I still don't think it is fair to the DEVELOPERS.

Hmm ...

[lennier1]

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.

Re:Hmm ...

[ijakings]

Its a nice little analogy, however as far as I am aware there arent laws prohibiting me from popping the hood of car and re-enabling these features.

Software companies have gotten this anti-circumvention BS in, and its only (As was always predicted) being used to shaft consumers at large, not the pirates who surprise surprise dont have to deal with it.

Re:Hmm ...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Hey there, consumer, I'm afraid that the ECU firmware is licensed, not sold, and licenses are not transferable. Can I sign you up for a new support agreement?

I suspect that it would be a riskier move, since it would leave a much larger population feeling alienated; but it isn't obviously the case that contemporary cars would be any more immune to software-licensing related bullshit than would other firmware-dependent hardware devices(the ones with OnStar or equivalent can even phone home...)

Re:Hmm ...

[jimicus]

No, but modern cars almost invariably use a lot of onboard computer systems, and interrogating those systems requires a device which is only available to the franchised dealers.

OBD-II attempts to work around this by providing a legally-mandated, standardised diagnostics system. I'm given to understand that manufacturers are known to work around this mandate by ensuring that if you hook up a plain OBD-II diagnostics machine, the car gives the bare minimum information it has to. If you hook up the official device, you get a lot more.

Sony. The "I've lost my mind" option!

[Chas]

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!

Re:DLC is symptomatic of a larger problem

[billcopc]

If it costs $100 million to make a shitty game like GTA IV, the game industry needs a reality check. That is some serious coin just to display cartoon figures on a TV screen. How much of that budget is being funneled to non-production assets (i.e. profiteering suits) ?

Re:DLC is symptomatic of a larger problem

[mehrotra.akash]

Game prices may be rising, but only in "developed" markets.

In the emerging markets, game prices are actually falling

Re:Sony. The "I've lost my mind" option!

[mehrotra.akash]

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?

Re:DLC is symptomatic of a larger problem

[0123456]

How much of that budget is being funneled to non-production assets (i.e. profiteering suits) ?

Or hiring celebrity voice actors just so I can turn on subtitles and skip over all the audio anyway because I hate cutscenes and read twice as fast as they speak?

Caps

[tepples]

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.

Re:Caps

[joocemann]

Doh! Just bought Wipeout HD on a PS Store special for $15, then I blew my download cap and got $40 added to the internet bill! What gives?!?!

One more reason to protest caps, throttling, and anything but 24/7 bandwidth at the advertised rate. Just do easy honest business: that is all we really need.

Re:Caps

[Dr_Barnowl]

It rankles even more when your ISP specifically advertises that you can download "Games, Music and Movies, faster than ever!"

Re:Caps

[tepples]

What you're asking for is unlimited download caps, and they offer that service... it's called business class

Then you run into clueless ISP representatives, who don't know how to create a business class account for your address where you currently subscribe to residential TV service.

Comcast's 250GB/month limit would still be high enough

With respect to video game downloads, I'm not complaining about Comcast's cap as much as about the caps in areas where cable just isn't available. Such places have only satellite and 3G.

Re:Caps

[joocemann]

I'm all for breaking it down to about $50/month for 8mbit 24/7! That's about what I pay and what I *should* get right now anyway!

The real issue is this. I pay about $50/month for 8mbit cable. It turns out that there are 205 active 8mbit clients on the node... the node is a 42mbit client.

So by 1pm, I see 2mbit, and by 3pm I see under 1mbit.

Not to mention the ping to san francisco goes from 25ms to 240ms and becomes jittery.

You can't actually get 8mbit unless its morning or very late night, and you can't game. I realize not everyone wants to pay a ton, and not everyone NEEDS to use their desired bandwidth at 24/7. The main issue is the widespread overselling to the degree I just described. They, ISPs, are largely not even providing the semblance of service you pay for.

And what makes this worse? I hear of people with 25mbit connections! This is ridiculous! ISPs that cannot provide 8mbit, selling 25mbit connections. That's just pure nonsense! Not only will the advertised service not be available, but it will be extremely diminished by the fact that they ridiculously offer such high and unnecessary rates in the first place!

JUST DO HONEST BUSINESS! That is all I'm really saying. If I can't get my 8mbit 24/7 then something is wrong with the system. That doesn't mean that everyone deserves 8mb 24/7, but that the best possible estimate of the load provides that at any given time, those desiring bandwidth are able to achieve it and with reasonable latency.

Like I said before, your proposed model hardly works because they don't upgrade infrastructure as fast as they oversell.

IT ONLY DEMANDS ALL YOUR MONEY

[Nihn]

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.

Does Steam have solid games in all genres?

[tepples]

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?

Re:Does Steam have solid games in all genres?

[joocemann]

I know you can get world of goo. Bejeweled. plants vs zombies. I'm sure it has a load of 2-d adventure games akin to mario as well.

Dude. Just get the steam client on your PC. Its free and you can uninstall it. I think its www.steampowered.com Yeah, just checked.

You can see all that they have in the store, check out screenpics and videos, see ratings, etc. Also, it auto-updates all your games that are on steam, via steam, at your max bandwidth, and stands as a game launcher.

It used to be lightly significant on resources, but its insignificant in 2011.

Re:Does Steam have solid games in all genres?

[Splab]

Steam has a lot of games, just download the client and look for yourself, it's free.

Re:Does Steam have solid games in all genres?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Steam have solid games in all genres, even those not traditionally associated with PCs?

You know you could just go to the online store and take a look, just use the Genres drop down.

Re:Does Steam have solid games in all genres?

[Americium]

It even updates your video card driver if it needs to be. If it wasn't for steam I'd never know when to update my ati driver. Then there are also all the great demos he can freely tryout. And while I'm at it, http://www.humblebundle.com/, they are steam compatible and as cheap as your heart desires, and one of them happens to be a 2d platformer, although I haven't played it at all.

Re:Does Steam have solid games in all genres?

[gmhowell]

Steam has a lot of games, just download the client and look for yourself, it's free.

Yeah, the first one always is...

Re:Does Steam have solid games in all genres?

[Anonymous Coward]

For all those who wonder about Steam, because there's a lot of things people don't know about it (and there's a lot of misconceptions too):
I currently own about 70 games on steam and it's great. I've been using Steam for 8 years now, when it was still a small thing, had a small library, and you'd buy hard copies of games that synchronized to Steam upon install (such as a Half Life 1 - Counter-Strike 1.6 bundle)

The pros of Steam:
- Huge game library, and lots of different kinds of games. Saves you from going to a store.
- Great discounts (usually 10% on fresh games, 50-75% on not too recent games, and I'm pretty sure I've seen a few 90% discounts on rare occasions), and you can see all their discounts easily (there's a page where all current discounts are listed, plus discounts for popular games are generally advertised on the store's first page within the client.
- Promotions you don't get in stores: There are 4-pack bundles (get 4 copies of a multiplayer game for the price of 3 so you can share with friends). There's also some cool offers, sometimes if you pre-order a game you can get the previous games in the franchise for free (kind of rare though but it depends on the developer, not Steam. Still, stores don't do that).
- Click "Install" and steam will download and install your game. No need to check on the computer every 10 minutes to click "Next" to let the installation proceed. You can also install multiple games at once, which is very convenient when you just formatted your hard disk or bought a new computer.
- You can copy the installed game files to an external drive, then copy them on another computer and you can play your games on Steam without going through the installation process again. Each game has it's own folder withing the Steam folder, so it's really easy to do.
- If you're visiting family far from home for a few weeks and you have a computer there, just download your games instead of carrying all CDs in your luggage.
- Games are automatically updated to the latest patches. While Steam runs in the background, you may sometimes get a notification '[GAME] has finished updating".
- Steam has its own forums for games, which means you just have one place to go for support whatever game you're playing (no need to find and go to the publisher's website). Speaking of support, since people turn to Steam when something doesn't work, I think Steam puts some pressure on the developers/publishers to resolve problems quick. In any case, major problems get solved fast on Steam.
- They tell you everything you need to know about the games you buy: what DLC are available, whether you own a game or DLC already, DRM and games that require subscriptions for online play have a noticeable warnings on their page...
- Some games have seasonal patches. For example, the game Killing Floor (multiplayer zombie shooter) had special zombie skins during the Christmas Holiday period. These seasonal patches are made easier to apply with a system like Steam, since Steam updates games automatically. If users had to manually install an update every winter, then remove it in spring, it would be too much a hassle and therefore would never be done by the developers.
- Steam has achievements for nearly all games (some old ones may not have any). Depends if you care about achievements or not, but it's nice to have them all in one place for all your games.
- Steam is not really a DRM, in case you heard it is (see 'Cons' fore details).
- Yes, Steam games can be modded as easily as non-Steam versions of the same games. Never had any problems.

Cons:
- You need fast bandwidth to download games, so if you still have a 56k connection... you'll play a few days or weeks after purchase =p
- If your ISP puts a monthly download limit on you (e.g. 40 GB/month) then you won't be able to download too many games each month (or you'll pay extra to your ISP).
- You don't have nice game boxes (for those who like to collect them)
- Steam is sort of a DRM. It's like this: you have a Steam acco

Re:Does Steam have solid games in all genres?

[Laurence0]

Max bandwidth? Rubbish... My one complaint about Steam is how slow the downloads are. My connection maxes out at around 17Mb/s, which I regularly get with torrents, http downloads and so on, Steam is usually a fraction of that. I'll get bursts of 1MB (ie, 8Mb), normally it's down around 400-500 kB.

Re:Does Steam have solid games in all genres?

[JohnnyBGod]

You don't even need to download the client. Just head to the website and browse.

Re:Does Steam have solid games in all genres?

[V for Vendetta]

Does Steam have solid games in all genres, even those not traditionally associated with PCs?

Check for yourself. No need to donwload/install the Steam client, if you just want to browse their catalog.

Sony has a monopoly on Rickrolling

[tepples]

unless Sony is THE only option left on earth

Sony Music has a monopoly on Rickrolling, for one thing.

Re:Sony. The "I've lost my mind" option!

[thegrassyknowl]

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.

Re:Wny isn't console multiplayer a lost sale?

[Americium]

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. You watch the owner play fullscreen and wish you could do that. You play split screen and immediately notice the lack of FOV and resolution, and it makes you only want the full screen version (purchase your own copy) more.

Also, I don't need to own a ps3 to go play split screen at my friends house, but I do need one to purchase used games. Sony doesn't sell ps3 to be used without video games, they would lose money that way. Well, they tried it with their otherOS and it turned into a horrible fiasco, even the military figured it out and started buying subsidized products from Sony.

Re:DLC is symptomatic of a larger problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The cartoon nature to the graphics is the render and shader engine, but all those graphics need to be created, and that takes a lot of time and it isn't cheap.

The problem is that the current generation of systems placed graphics before everything, to the point where the game suffers playwise.

As a 3D artist myself for games and cinema I can attest to this. I also tend to go for the games with crappier graphics because they are more fun to play.

Re:Just played the SOCOM 4 MP beta...

[MacGyver2210]

Oh poor, sad, misguided joocemann...

If only you understood exactly what an abysmal portion of the proceeds actually make it to the developers...it's really not profitable unless you're one of the big mind-/face-less corporations. Even with the big guys, the money doesn't go to the programmers or the designers, it goes to executives and management.

And the cycle of greed continues

[Kaleidomorph]

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

Re:And the cycle of greed continues

[Elbereth]

This is a brilliant parody of a gamer with an entitlement complex. Bravo! I especially loved the subtle troll where you said million, instead of billion. If I may, I would suggest throwing in some kind of demand for a boycott. Everyone on Slashdot loves a boycott. In fact, I think we're boycotting the entirety of Europe this month.

Re:Sony. The "I've lost my mind" option!

[kenshin33]

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)....

nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:nonsense

[jittles]

Exactly. It's the same thing with cars. If I knew that I could not sell my used car for something, I would keep it until it was absolutely worthless. That might delay me purchasing a new car by 5 or 10 years. The fact of the matter is that people who play games don't just sell off all their games and quit playing new ones (usually). They will take some or all of the money they get back and use it to buy other games.

Re:Just played the SOCOM 4 MP beta...

[Lehk228]

I won't buy it new, i won't buy it used, i will NEVER buy a PS3 or any future sony hardware if this is their business model

FYI Sony owns Zipper interactive so it's a first party game.

Good news for single-player campaigns!

[ArundelCastle]

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.

Re:Good news for single-player campaigns!

[mjwx]

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)

$30 version of Starcraft 2, not bloody likely.

A large part of the 100 mil that went into making it was the sheer amount of CGI and voice work that went into the pre-rendered scenes in the single player. A lot of games only have a few minutes of CG or none at all because it's so damned expensive to produce. that being said, I like multiplayer starcraft but haven't played a single on-line game of SC2.

Re:Good news for single-player campaigns!

[Ash Vince]

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 would like to see they day where I can just buy the multiplayer bit as I find playing against any sort of artificial opposition just too damn dull. Even the best AI never matches a human being. I also like playing against other human beings so I can hear them moan about me being a hacker or cheating like a little girl when they lose.

Re:Good news for single-player campaigns!

[Soldarith]

I do agree with pretty much everything you said. I too am a mainly single-player gamer with not much attention spent on multiplayer (with very few exceptions). However, over the last decade there has been a downward trend in single player campaigns becoming shorter and shorter and streamlined to the point where you feel pushed along with no decision-making required.

Honestly? I cannot think of very many games that I've played in the last few years whose single player campaigns would have been worth $30. Maybe Mass Effect I.

You are 100% correct, however, in that companies today are bolting on cookie cutter multiplayer games to watered-down single player games and we somehow arrive at the same $59.99 the industry commands for titles.

It would be very interesting to see companies begin to separate the two and sell them as completely different SKUs on the market. I, for one, would be picking up the single player discs happily without ever touching the digital download of multiplayer on most of the titles I play.

I am a game renter through Gamefly. Why? Because I was tired of shelling out $59.99 for crappy games. I was tired of reading the paid-for over-inflating reviews of titles, only to get it home and discover that they were not worth their production costs. I was tired of an industry that had moved towards a "no demo before release" standard where I had to roll the dice on knowing what was behind the wrapper before dropping $60. And I was tired of spending $59.99 on a title to have it be beaten in 10 hours of game time and in less than a week's time take it to Game Stop and get $20 for it (and for them to resell it for $55). So now Gamefly buys all of my games for me. I rent them from Gamefly. And if I really love the game, I have the option to buy it -- which I've done a couple of times now.

Re:Good news for single-player campaigns!

[CaseM]

You think this is going trend is going to stop with multiplayer options?

Re:DLC is symptomatic of a larger problem

[Anonymous Coward]

In Colombia, game prices are typically 150-200% higher than the same game in the USA. We're emerging. Wish we had falling prices.

Re:DLC is symptomatic of a larger problem

[mehrotra.akash]

Game prices in India are about 20-30% of the USD prices, and about 50% of the prices from 5 years back.(only for PC's, not for gaming consoles)
I assumed that its a typical phenomenon ...

More like activation

[mjwx]

How is this any different than PC games that have CD keys that you need to install, Actually this is more like games where you need to activate in order to play.

With CD keys, you could sell the CD Key with the original media. With this game, you cannot sell the mechanism to play on-line with the media.

Wont do any good

[mjwx]

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.

Re:Wont do any good

[Ash Vince]

This quote was originally made about a nation marching people off to the gas chambers. To use it propping up an argument about not playing a computer game is kind of lame and sullies the memory of the millions marched to their deaths. Losing the ability to play a game (copied or otherwise) is not the same as losing your life.

Re:Minesweeper!

[TaoPhoenix]

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!

Re:DLC is symptomatic of a larger problem

[hairyfeet]

Not to mention how much of that bling bling is bullshit? How many here would play a game with Far Cry 1 level graphics if it had a kick ass story and AI that really made you think and work for it, as opposed to dumping in shit AI and expecting everyone to deal with "nigger fag" teens in online bullshit? I know I would.

At the end of the day a good 80%+ of that bling bling ends up box cover bullshit. People walk into my shop and go "ooooh neat!" when I'm sitting there playing "Brothers in Arms:Hells Highway" even though that game is something like 7 years old now because it has cool story and gameplay not because of the bling bling factor.

So I'd say the only ones to blame are the companies themselves who got into a "our ePeen is bigger than yours" race which only looks good on the box and most people ignore anyway. How many sit through those huge cinemas more than once? Hell you could just render them with in game characters and call it a day. Sams as every twig having to be lovingly rendered in explosions. You know what? if shit blows up nice and big I'm a happy camper, I don't give a shit if each blade of grass bends correctly from the blast.

Its a game dammit, make it fun, make it a challenge without dealing with online BS, and I'm on like donkey kong!

Stop pussyfooting around

[TheSpoom]

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.

Re:Stop pussyfooting around

[Locke2005]

Right, because forcing you to re-buy all your games again when your console craps out is an excellent business model!

Re:Stop pussyfooting around

[pokyo]

If you don't like this then stop being so cheap and spend the extra 5 dollars to get the new copy. You support the developers. (note that whey I say YOU I am not singling our yourself but speaking to used game buyers in general).

Re:Stop pussyfooting around

[TheSpoom]

They'll tie it to a user account (and AFAIK all the console companies can move software from a broken console to a new one, you just can't without their help).

They're not complete assholes.

Story is overrated

[gottabeme]

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.

Your car analogies are all wrong

[SJHillman]

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.

Doesn't effect me...wouldn't buy a Sony product...

[spagthorpe]

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.

Used Game

[applematt84]

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!

Seriously?

[WillyWanker]

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?

Re:Seriously?

[geekmux]

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?

In a realistic scenario and world, you're absolutely right.

Unfortunately, we live in an unrealistic world where the people who can afford $60 console games still number in the several hundred million globally, so the whole argument regarding the "recession" and "this economy" tends to go out the window for most companies out there. To put it simply, there will ALWAYS be demand based on sheer numbers, and these companies know it which is rather obvious based on their perpetual arrogance to continue to keep console games around the $60 price point, as well as pull bullshit like this used game policy.

Bottom line is if the "economy" or "recession" was going to have any REAL impact in this market, it would have likely happened already. The proof of the power of sheer numbers is out there everywhere, and it really is disgusting how much it changes business owners with the arrogance they continue to have.

Re:Seriously?

[WillyWanker]

I disagree. I think the motivating factor behind dickish moves like this is because those $60 games aren't selling well at all and they're trying to recoup losses by gutting the used game market.

Yes, there are always people that will buy tons of $60 games, but their numbers are shrinking and publishers are trying whatever they can to stem the hemorrhaging without having to actually acknowledge their business model isn't going to be sustainable for much longer.

Everybody laughed at the idea not too long ago

[Hydian]

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.

Re:Hypocrisy

[residieu]

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.

It depends.

[Lumpy]

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!

Re:It depends.

[brendank310]

Yeah the withholding of content which is already produced (or ported from older versions of the game) is ridiculous. In order to get all the courses in Tiger Woods 12, the overall cost becomes ~$110. Most of these DLC courses are ones that were included in previous years games, and you know that EA didn't rework them, maybe slapped on a new texture or something. Of the 34 courses available, 14 are included with your $60 purchase. Most of those were included in TW09. Same thing with one of the Call of Duty games where they released downloadable maps that were part of Call of Duty 1.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Lumpy]

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.

Semantics

[Locke2005]

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.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Locke2005]

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!

Re:No Profit

[Locke2005]

So change the business model. Give the software away for free, and charge people for access to the servers for multiplayer gaming. Problem solved. (Granted, this doesn't work for all games. But the notion that a game should be both a single-player game and a multiplayer game is silly anyway.)

Re:Typical Sony bullshit

[Locke2005]

Lets look at another scenario: my PS3 fails (it's Sony hardware, it's not going to last forever). Do I now have to pay to use the games I already own on my replacement device? How about if I sell the PS3 with the games?

Re:No Profit

[geekmux]

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.

Uh, a "certain percentage"? So, suddenly the profit the manufacturer made the first time around selling the game new for $50 or more doesn't count?

Sorry, I have little patience listening to manufacturers whine about this, especially as they continue to turn huge profits. They made their money the first time around, how many times should we pay a manufacturer for selling or re-selling a single copy of their game?

Yeah, I know that selling used games does have some impact on the overall market, but we seem to be too quick to forget that every single used game out there was sold as new at some point.

Non-split shared screen games

[tepples]

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?

Re:Non-split shared screen games

[Americium]

I was referring to the split screen games, it's seemed idiotic to take your comment on fighting games seriously.

Re:Non-split shared screen games

[tepples]

I was referring to the split screen games

It's just that a lot of people posting comments to Slashdot stories about the video game industry tend to appear to forget entirely about the existence of entire genres of non-split screen multiplayer games that run on one console. Perhaps they only play games in genres stereotypically associated with PC, such as FPS and RTS.

Re:Non-split shared screen games

[Americium]

It's the selling point of street fighter, that you can play 2 player. It's the marketing strategy of those games. It's nonsensical to think that a successful game, that is bought often just because you can play 2 player, is somehow making a loss by offering 2 player.

Re:Hypocrisy

[dadelbunts]

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.

Re:Preorder bonuses

[dadelbunts]

Pre order bonuses really piss me off. Hell i buy games new and on top of that im restricted because i didnt buy it BEFORE it came out? Also ever notice that all these preorder bonuses are run through gamestop, the evil company they are trying to squash out.

The NECESSARY car analogy!

[SirAstral]

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.

Re:The NECESSARY car analogy!

[pokyo]

This analogy doesn't really fit.

Assume your car came with free Sirius for a year, or if you don't like that maybe is had 3G access for some spiffy new feature. This free service costs the car manufacturer money, which they factor into the cost of the car. When you activate it, you tend to have to supply your identification etc. The service is granted to you and was a perk of buying the car new. When you sell the car, the service is still in your name and is non-transferable.

Another analogy. You buy a car new and it has free financing for a year. If you sell this car to someone else, they don't get your free financing for a year deal.

SONY has taken a similar approach. When you buy the game the perks are activated for you and are non transferable.

On top of all of this you need a car for what, most of your life? Used cars immediately drop in value, and when you buy a car you need to pay special fees so that it is registered in your name. The market itself will discourage you from buying a new car every month using the money from selling your old car. Cars also deteriorate, whereas games remain the same. Last time I checked, used games are 5 dollars cheaper than new ones right? People say, hey I save 5 dollars and it is basically the same. OR even worse gamestop says we have no new ones, but we have these nice used ones. I would never choose a used car over a new car when I only save 8%...and I doubt you would too.

It's Sony, you expected.... ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Friends don't let friends buy Sony, even second hand, enough said.

Gamefly needs to boycott these games

[Duane13]

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.

Re:Hypocrisy

[geekmux]

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.

Re:DLC is symptomatic of a larger problem

[Evtim]

Probably half went for the license of the music on the radio stations

Re:Hypocrisy

[residieu]

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..).

G.R.E.E.D.

[maudin8]

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

This isn't a new development

[Hadlock]

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.

BINGO! If a purchase is only a license, media=free

[sys_mast]

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"

Re:Just played the SOCOM 4 MP beta...

[joocemann]

Well hopefully those execs and management will manage to pull it off again! I'm not saying they deserve all the credit, and the personal evidence I know of completely contradicts what you've said (as in who gets paid), but if they put the teams together and pushed the vision to produce what I like, I suppose they deserve my bucks too.

I know that the actual people who *made* gears of war and gears of war 2 make really good money from their share in the profits. Epic is a great company and afaik they pay out a good amount of profits to the makers.

The Real Point

[Cardhu]

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.

I think this is generous

[pokyo]

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?

Shit not given ...

[RockDoctor]

Subject says it all.