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.

[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?

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[kenshin33]

or pirates :-)

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[stonewallred]

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

[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: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: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: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?

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.

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: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...

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!

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!

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.