Sony Introduces 'PSN Pass' To Fight Used Game Sales

Gamasutra reports that Sony has introduced "PSN Pass" — one-time codes that will unlock complete online access for certain games. "The company didn't offer details on how used and rental players would access online features in these titles, but did clarify that first-party use of the passes will be decided on a game-by-game basis." The initiative is similar to the "Online Pass" that EA rolled out last year, and to Sony's own experiment with SOCOM 4. Sony's explanation for the Pass will probably leave you wishing Google Translate supported marketing-speak: "This is an important initiative as it allows us to accelerate our commitment to enhancing premium online services across our first party game portfolio."

Comments

online games

[cgeys]

I know such always get critized by customers and it's Sony here... But lets try to look at it objectively. Running online services costs money. Running online services that are constantly improved, have new items or classes or whatever rolled out and the game being balanced all the time cost a lot more money. These games don't have monthly subscriptions because that only works with mmo games. This means the game company is fully dependant on the income from game sales. When people resell their game the game developers get nothing, so they also have less incentive to support online games.

Now this leaves a few options for the game company. Valve is currently experiencing with the another one - make the game free to play and have a store where gamers can buy items or decoration (hats, different colors). This is also how Facebook games and the like work, and this has been the standard in Asian markets for a long time. This also gets criticized here on slashdot, but I think it works pretty well with TF2. Players get a truly awesome game for free and theres incentive for the players to buy from store (I want this item now), but they can also unlock them via achievements and playing the game. I bought TF2 (Orange Box) when it came out, but I've also bought a few items from the store after I started playing it again now. Items I felt would make my gaming nicer as I could customize my classes as I wanted to. Items I just got a little bit earlier.

The other one sadly is either monthly fees or things like this PSN Pass. As I've personally never resold a game (and I don't think it's so huge market with PC games, consoles yes) I really don't feel like paying a monthly fee to play some shooter game. Microsoft handles this by collectively collecting a monthly feel for the whole 360 service. But the truth is, somehow the company needs to get money to run the online services. I spend a lot for the game, so I don't like to subsidize freeloaders. It's only fair that they also pay a little to get online access, which is a recurring cost for the game company.

Re:online games

[Chrisq]

I tend to agree. Restrictions on online access seem fair. Disabling the whole game for second hand buyers is not.

Re:online games

[Anonymous Coward]

"These games don't have monthly subscriptions because that only works with mmo games. This means the game company is fully dependant on the income from game sales."

Keep it in perspective: Sony (or whatever company involved for game X) will shut the server for that particular game down after X months or X years REGARDLESS of used or new game sales. It will be done. As such, this point you're making means nothing. They spend X dollars putting the server up. They base this off of new game sales, fine. BUT. In order for a used game to connect to this server, it means there's one less "new" game connecting to it. To put it simply, the total number of games bought will stay the same. The game will go offline after the same amount of time anyway so WTF screw with used games sales.

Re:online games

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember a time when games where made to be fun in single player mode. Some of them had a multiplayer mode that didn't requre internet access.
I like that sort of games and that is the kind of games I will buy.

Re:online games

[jimshatt]

Maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture here, but what difference does it make, from the perspective of the game publisher, whether I play the game for 2 years, using the services provided, or I play the game for 1 year and someone else plays the game for another extra year? The game has been payed for, and that includes the 'right' to the services for however long I wish (and whichever corporeal body I reside in).

Re:online games

[Anonymous Coward]

But lets try to look at it objectively. Running online services costs money. Running online services that are constantly improved, have new items or classes or whatever rolled out and the game being balanced all the time cost a lot more money.

Mentioning that is just a sugarcoated lie or wishful thinking.

You want to be objective? I haven't played a major-publisher game who either improved or added anything after release in a LONG time. They usually give up any kind of support very few months after release.

Do you want to know what you'll actually be getting? Increased game prices (What you thought they will lower the initial game price? Hah!) and online communities will die off much faster (Who's going to pay extra to play an older game for which the developer has given up support a month after release? Plus fewer people will buy the game in the first place because they simply lack the money as they can no longer resell their old games.).

These passes are a scam.

If you really think you'll get your money's worth for these passes, you're a chump.

Re:online games

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, this is exactly the bullshit what companies such as Sony like you to think, there is no nothing free in this world etc., that is. However, I refuse to buy shitty games, games with shitty DRM or shitty execution or licensing terms (I don't believe you can actually own games today). The latter is exactly what this PSN Pass thing is: Pay us more bacause the only thing we care about is money.

So, have fun paying more as I'll be spending my money on some other things. And oh, don't bother even writing to your game makers (as it would cost money for them to read your letters; At least you should include some sort of reading fee to cover the costs) after they decide to shut down servers and keep every implementation detail themselves "because we might reuse the franchise after 20 years or so and it would suck if there had been some (quite possibly very low activity) community driven, "free as in free speech" service available at some point".

Re:online games

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the difference is that in the second case they didn't get their money twice as they would have if the other player had to buy a new copy, but only once. That is the entire problem.

It has zilch to do with running of the online services (the costs are the same) and everything with trying to milk out more revenue from players.

Re:online games

[Anonymous Coward]

These games don't have monthly subscriptions because that only works with mmo games. This means the game company is fully dependant on the income from game sales. When people resell their game the game developers get nothing, so they also have less incentive to support online games.

Thanks for the astroturfing, man, but your argument doesn't even make sense. The game developers also get nothing if the original owner continues to play the game.

Do I get reimbursed if I buy a game and stop playing after three months? Of course not, so why should the game developers get to double-dip if people play it for longer than anticipated?

Or consider books. I also own books I haven't finished even once. I don't pay more for the former, and I don't get money back for the latter, and in either case, if I resell a book, the publisher gets nothing. Or how about cars (we love car analogies)? I got a Ford, and if I resell it, Ford doesn't get anything, despite the fact that it costs them an opportunity to sell a new vehicle. Should I really be allowed to resell an object, for no other reason than that it is MINE?

And all that hand-wringing about how running servers costs money (not to mention things like security - and we all know how much money Sony invests into these things, right)... if game developers have a problem with that, let them charge a monthly fee. That's fair and transparent, and people can decide whether to buy a game or not then.

Re:online games

[Gideon Wells]

I spend a lot for the game, so I don't like to subsidize freeloaders. It's only fair that they also pay a little to get online access, which is a recurring cost for the game company.

But you don't pay extra as a customer to keep with the upkeep of the game. In fact, this all sounds like the battle with RIAA and music piracy. How many used game buyers would buy the game used anyways? Should the people who buy the game on sale also be counted as free loaders? They didn't pay the full price. What about game monitoring, I buy the game and play it a few times and forget about it for two years. Should I get reimbursed since I didn't utilize the services?

Yes, there is an ongoing cost with keeping servers and whatnot running. The problem with the access being tied to the first sale of the game is that Sony is admitting they don't expect everyone to play the game online. This is even more benign than music piracy. It is a person giving up access to a game they legally bought to another to play in their place. Saying this puts undue hardship on the online portion of a game is saying anyone keeping a game and playing it thoroughly is putting undue hardship on the company.

I usually miss something small and stupid. I can see the argument, though I don't like it, of using this tactic to counter perceived hurt sales due to the resale market. I just don't see how rentals and resales hurt a company's upkeep unless they are taking advantage of casual players and thus the "hard core" are the free loaders.

Re:online games

[Vanderhoth]

However the second player may never had bought the game until it was a used game because of the cost of buying the game new. So the original point still stands. I know I never pay $50+ for any game. I wait to buy it from a friend or from a used store. Doing so also means most of the bugs are worked out by the time I get it.

I've of the opinion the only reason game companies introduced online modes to games is so they could better control how and who is playing a game. I remember back in the day having a LAN parties, dialing a friends house or setup my own server to play. I also didn't have to deal with 13 year old prepubescent s screaming obscenities every time I wanted to have a match.

Re:online games

[Anonymous Coward]

I know such always get critized by customers and it's Sony here... But lets try to look at it objectively. Running online services costs money. Running online services that are constantly improved, have new items or classes or whatever rolled out and the game being balanced all the time cost a lot more money. These games don't have monthly subscriptions because that only works with mmo games. This means the game company is fully dependant on the income from game sales. When people resell their game the game developers get nothing, so they also have less incentive to support online games.

Assuming that the cost of the online service is set when pricing the original release (a number of servers running for the planned lifespan of the game divided up by the number of copies + profit), this shouldn't be a problem. Each original sale adds a player to the number of people using the servers. A second hand sale means that one player stops playing and another one starts playing, there's no change in the number of players the servers have to support in this case.

Re:online games

[jovetoo]

First, they look at it differently: each second hand sale is a sale they earn no money from. They consider that a lost sale. This is debatable.

Second, you make the assumption that you payed for unlimited service for an unlimited time. In practice, however you have a limited amount of time you can play games and a limited amount of time you are willing to spend on this particular game. This is calculated into the price of the game. Each second hand gamer increases this particular amount of time per original sale of the game and thus increases service costs.

In the end, a second hand sale is not only a sale that does not bring in money, it actually costs them money.

Re:online games

[delinear]

It's also an incredibly blinkered approach that could well backfire. A lot of people only buy new games because they know they can resell them. A lot of people only buy used because they can't afford new. This scheme might have the desire effect of giving them a slice of all used games, but it might just as likely kill the used game market (because people who can't afford the new game definitely aren't going to want to pay the same price for a used game plus access) and eat into their new game sales (as people become more picky about what they buy in the knowledge there's no resale value since the used market just got gutted). It's a very risky strategy playing with a complex ecology like that, especially when it's one that generally works and this whole thing is just about greed and wanting to sell the same content more than once.

Re:online games

[cgeys]

If the original buyer sells the game, he is obviously bored with it. It's not a situation of original buyer playing two years or original buyer playing one year and other player playing one year.

The comment about single player/lan/multiplayer games in the old times is slightly wrong. The recent generation multiplayer games have a lot more content and gameplay than they previously had. Unlocks, classes, customization. Even FPS games are getting close to roleplaying/mmo games. I personally love it. The best aspect for example in CoD multiplayer for me has been the customization allowed. I also love that TF2 is adding more and more of it. It's a lot different than from the quake times.

Re:online games

[delinear]

Hear hear. The whole point of PSN was meant to be that it's free - if developers are now introducing hidden costs to cover the online play features, that's completely missing the point. Besides which, I'd be interested to know what these running costs are - apart from match-making servers, I was under the impression most console games were peer hosted (i.e. one of the players is also the server) specifically to minimise running costs. If it really costs so much to run a server to match player A to players B, C and D, then outsource it to a third party and let them show ads or something - multiplayer has been free forever in the world of the PC and that's still profitable enough that games get made - imposing a hidden tax on every resale is nothing to do with covering costs, it's just about wanting a slice of a market that's nothing to do with them. I'd have less of a problem if the industry were forced to put a big, clear message on the front of every box explaining why it had dminished resale value so at least customers can make an informed choice.

Re:online games

[conares]

Most games AFAIK the gamers them selves pay for the online services. TF2 or basically any other Valve game are always on dedicated servers (are there official servers that Valve pay for?). BF:BC2 also, MW2 has that fuckup one player has to host. Someone is definitely paying for online services, but its not the makers of the games.

Re:online games

[X.25]

I know such always get critized by customers and it's Sony here... But lets try to look at it objectively. Running online services costs money. Running online services that are constantly improved, have new items or classes or whatever rolled out and the game being balanced all the time cost a lot more money

So, your logic is that it costs SONY more to run servers when someone purchases a game off me and wants to play it online, than when I play it online myself?

Brilliant.

Re:online games

[cgeys]

That would be true if we all had just one game and we never lost interest in it. But the fact is, you don't usually continue playing that long and at least not so often. If you do, good! But if you now sell the game to new player, he has all the interest in it like a new customer, except that he didn't pay a cent to the game company. Your theory is nice, but it fails in practice. These costs have been calculated statistically when defining the price of game and how much they can spend on online services. Resold game is basically allowing freeloaders. Now, as Sony is a business it's not off from them. They just shift that cost to other customers. But is that fair to the others?

Re:online games

[Vanderhoth]

If the original buyer sells the game, he is obviously bored with it. It's not a situation of original buyer playing two years or original buyer playing one year and other player playing one year.

This was the original point. However the second buyer wouldn't have bought the game at all if they had to pay full price. So either way the developer isn't making anymore weather buyer 1 plays for two years or buyer 1 plays for one year and buyer 2 plays for one year.

The comment about single player/lan/multiplayer games in the old times is slightly wrong.

My opinion that I prefer being able to choose who I play with is wrong? I'm so glad you pointed that out for me.

The recent generation multiplayer games have a lot more content and gameplay than they previously had. Unlocks, classes, customization. Even FPS games are getting close to roleplaying/mmo games. I personally love it. The best aspect for example in CoD multiplayer for me has been the customization allowed. I also love that TF2 is adding more and more of it. It's a lot different than from the quake times.

I personally find that being able to add content to the game after release has seriously degraded games. Instead of releasing a full featured great game, publishers are releasing shoddy half games. Then adding the rest of the content that should have been in the original later. Worse still in many cases they're charging you extra for the content you should have gotten when paid $60 up front.

Re:online games

[moronoxyd]

If the original buyer sells the game, he is obviously bored with it. It's not a situation of original buyer playing two years or original buyer playing one year and other player playing one year.

But it is neither a simple case of "without used games the developer would have sold twice as many games".

Not only my the person who bought the game used never have bought the game for full price, but the person who bought the game new might not have done so without knowing that he can get some of his money back by selling it to somebody else after a few months.

So used games help the developer (to some degree) by enabling more sales or keeping the price up.

Re:online games

[MaxBooger]

The other one sadly is either monthly fees or things like this PSN Pass.

I believe you are mistaking PSN Pass with PSN Plus. Plus is the service that extends free PSN with free-to-play titles, discounts and other such junk. Pass appears to be the standard lock-out-the-used-game-buyers methodology used by Electronic Arts.

Re:online games

[moronoxyd]

Reducing the resale value reduces the number of first hand sales.
People, who bought the game expecting to get some of the money back might not do so when there is no resale value.

To keep those people the developer would have to set a lower price.

In the end, a second hand sale helps the developer to keep a certain price level, so it earns money.

Re:online games

[cgeys]

Seriously, this "omg he's a shill" shit on /. needs to stop.

I'm not anti-open source, in fact I use CentOS and Fedora on my servers every day and I love its scripting abilities. That's where open source software really shines. At the same time I also understand (and acknowledge) that open source software has serious problems on desktop and especially with usability, because that is the truth. Of course we could all just lalalala, but doesn't that do more harm than bringing the fact out?

Pro Facebook? I've just pointed out that normal people like to use it and the fear mongering and "I just don't get it" attitude on slashdot is getting tiresome. For an intelligent community this large the sheer amount of ignorance is sometimes astonishing. I've also noted about the Google+ love and Facebook hate here on slashdot, objectively, as again many people here on slashdot don't seem to be able to see past the google-love mindset and that they both violate privacy and common good. The difference is that Google takes a soft, psychological way to do this and it seems to work for geeks as well extremely well. Like the previously noted "Do you want to improve your browsing and install Chrome" marketing with no "Yes" answer but a soft "Oh I guess that's ok" button.

It's not some shady slashdot marketing, it's opinions that sometimes differ from your own. Learn the difference.

Re:online games

[Anonymous Coward]

But then they actually don't need to run the service. The reason they are running the service is to motivate this kind of crap. In the old days the community around the game took responsibility of running game servers and that worked great. I for one miss the old days when singel player where fun and multiplayer comminties ran the servers

Re:online games

[ccguy]

Does this apply to books, too?

Re:online games

[Anonymous Coward]

Really!??!!

I'm sure what you meant to say was "Selling your hardcopy of game X is akin to selling your DVD copy of film Y"

Saying otherwise is suggesting - like all good *AAs - "we should get paid every time someone experiences our work, regardless of how it is transferred".

That's fine - you can say that if you wish - first, reduce your prices to that of every other "experienced" offering - anywhere between 99c and $10 - thanks.

Anything else and you're double-dipping - why should that be allowed again ? Nope ? Thought as much.

Disclosure: I buy my games - I don't rent them or get them second hand. (I'm also a software developer - so don't try the "you don't understand the process" argument here either).

Re:online games

[Molt]

Surely it's more like selling a movie DVD after you've seen the movie on it, and the person you sold it to demanding to see the movie too?

Re:online games

[hlavac]

I don't know about your area, but here in Czech Republic old games get progressively cheaper. If you are a cheapskate and can't afford a shiny new game, you probably can't afford the beefy gear required to run the new games either. So you simply play older games on older hardware and you are fine, just say two years behind...

Re:online games

[malkavian]

The worked out they could do it with the PC market, so they're moving that test case across to consoles now..

Re:online games

[Chrisq]

Not only my the person who bought the game used never have bought the game for full price, but the person who bought the game new might not have done so without knowing that he can get some of his money back by selling it to somebody else after a few months.

So used games help the developer (to some degree) by enabling more sales or keeping the price up.

That's certainly the way it works for most car buyers - they buy new and expect to recoup money on the sale or they by second hand. If motor manufacturers fitted a device so that it would be disabled on resale there would be an outcry, and it would probably reduce their sales anyway!

Re:online games

[shentino]

You'd be making a better (but less effective) analogy if you compared it to renting a game.

A movie ticket is a consumable commodity that entitles you to a service, that of watching the movie. It's quite different from purchasing a hard copy of the DVD.

Hard copies enjoy the First Sale doctrine, and as long as the original buyer relinquishes all rights to the property, the next buyer should be entitled to the benefit of his bargain.

I suspect though that your own analogy is inherently weak because the position you are advocating is nothing but bullshit and you can't really defend it.

Re:online games

[Geraden]

I would suggest that Sony and other developers base their statistical analysis on game time, etc. on the TRUE lifespan of a sold copy, including used sales, instead of solely on first-sale plays. Then they can come up with a true pricing model based on the very legal practice of the sale of used games, instead of trying to circumvent gamers' rights.

Re:online games

[Vanderhoth]

So you're saying it's ok for the company to slack off in what was promised in the later years of a game because the original owners aren't interested anymore?

Boy have I got news for you. I have lots of old games I love replaying. Every time I pick up an old game and play it, I show the same interest in it I had when I first bought it. By your logic after the first couple weeks/months I've owned the game I should have lost interest so the company shouldn't have to support the game anymore because I've already gotten board of it. I couldn't imagine the out rage I'd have if I tried to play Starcraft, Warcraft, Kings Quest, any of the final fantasy games or any of the other games I bought first hand and had a message pop-up. Sorry we're no longer supporting that game better luck next time.

How do you differentiate between and second hand player and a first hand player playing a second time! You can't.

Re:online games

[Lumpy]

And selling your car used is like stealing cookies from the store. It hurts the guy on the line building a car. you should destroy your car when you are done with it.
Selling your home after living in it hurts carpenters, you really should burn your house down when you move.
Let me guess, inviting friends over to watch a DVD I bought is theft in your eyes. What if I play that movie again? is that also stealing?

I only buy used games and I resell my used games to others because new games are incredibly overpriced. If I am hurting you personally by doing that, than that makes me very very happy. And I will continue to ONLY buy used games from now on. If it makes your industry crumble and puts people like you, that have a horribly distorted sense of reality out of work, then that makes me feel like a hero.

Re:online games

[Lumpy]

"Doing so also means most of the bugs are worked out by the time I get it."

Unless it's any of the crap from Lionhead Studios...

Fable II and Fable III are the most bug ridden turds I have ever seen.

Re:online games

[somersault]

I don't hate Facebook either nor do I care much about Google plus, but I always get suspicious when someone posts a large and measured first post in the same minute as a new story.

Re:online games

[Lumpy]

"The recent generation multiplayer games have a lot more content and gameplay than they previously had. Unlocks, classes, customization."

and DLC, LOTS of DLC.... over half the game is missing in the box because the gredy Developers want ot charge us $12.00 a pop to unlock things that are actually already in the game.

Re:online games

[poetmatt]

when you need more money from consumers, you don't take it from them by lowering the value of your games and basically forcing people to pay more.
you earn it from them by increasing their value.

Do you understand why this is so fucking backwards?
All sony has to do is start pricing games in the $20 range and they'd sell enough to get 3x-5x the profit they get off selling them at the $60 range. This isn't mystery math. Making a game a one-time use, and killing resale value, means the games have less value overall. Less value overall = less people buy.

Re:online games

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be absurd. If you buy a DVD, you are purchasing the right to watch the movie AND THE RIGHT TO SELL YOUR COPY. Nobody is going to pay $60 for the right to play some game one time and then have no power to sell it or give it away. It doesn't work that way with reality (bicycles, computers, cars), it doesn't work that way with other forms of art (books, paintings), and there is nothing special about digital media that makes it somehow wrong to sell what is yours. I'm truly sympathetic that artists don't see checks each time their paintings change hands.

Re:online games

[Anonymous Coward]

WOW, way to be intellectually dishonest with yourself. A movie ticket is for an event. While most people view a DVD as a physical object, its really a license to view, one that can be resold like anything else. But you know this, because you are smart guy. Way to argue for things you know not to be true because it benefits you.

Re:online games

[Anonymous Coward]

You buy a game brand new, the publisher / developers get a cut as well as the game system manufacturer if any. You decide to sell it to gamestop, gamestop buys your $60 game for $25 and sells it for $40. Someone comes in, see's that game for $60 NEW or $40 USED, they see no difference in the two, they pay gamestop $40 and gamestop see's all the profit to themselves. Meanwhile, game devs / publishers could have seen some kind of profit if the game wasn't sold used thanks to the lack of royalty laws for supported games. Game companies lose money even more from used games than they do from pirating, which is why their attention is less on pirating and more against used games. If you want more affordable new games, you'll have to get rid of the used games factor, which will be coming very soon, however this may trigger an up-rise in pirating.

Re:online games

[paul_metcalfe]

Why don't Sony make it possible for people to run their own server? Then there is no issue if Sony doesn't want to keep funding server space for multiplayer. The fans will solve the problem themselves. This is not ideal, since we're talking about a console not a PC. And even in the case of TF2 there needs to be a central server that keeps track of who bought which hats and gained which stats, because if you can run your own server and set your own hats for free, why would anyone shell out money for them? Oh by the way ever tried to sell your steam games? It's just as bad as this crap.

Re:online games

[Effexor]

So true. I remember when I was young and authors used to write books. Then the used book stores came along and now there are no more books. Will they never learn?

Re:online games

[Anonymous Coward]

You are one dumb motherfucker if you think that's a rational position.

Re:online games

[91degrees]

So is playing a game twice like seeing a film twice using the same ticket?

Re:online games

[Slashdot Assistant]

Movie tickets are normally sold for a single performance, so it's expected to expire regardless of whoever attends the showing. It's more comparable to someone re-selling a DVD. Developers get their fair share of the profit when the title is originally sold and have no obvious right to take a cut in subsequent re-selling. If you're not making enough profit on the initial sale then rethink your margins and/or business model. It's like turfing someone out of a cafe for denying you a sale by sharing their chips with a friend. You can make sharing against the rules of your cafe, but it's intellectually dishonest to equate it with someone someone stealing chips for resale. By all means introduce terms and technical measures that limit a game to a single activation (I accept that with Steam titles, StarCraft II and WoW. It's completely asinine to equate the reselling of games to piracy for profit. This mentality is one of reasons why I rarely buy movies and games anymore. I'm tired of publishers treating us like shit in order to shore-up a business model that could benefit from a rethink. I'll only buy things that really leap out at me - particularly if I know that I won't be able to re-sell the game should it turn out to be less than enjoyable.

Re:online games

[stealth_finger]

Unless most or all of this PSN pass payment goes onto the devs then this system is worse than pre owned. It's the devs that need the income to keep making games not sony.

Re:online games

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory http://xkcd.com/606/

Re:online games

[Needlzor]

Want to kill used market? Stop selling your stuff as if customers were made of gold, and stop with the "Keep that up, and soon nobody will create anything anymore" fear-mongering crap: the entertainment industry has been using this line with "piracy" for decades and nobody gives a fuck. My 2 cents.

Re:online games

[Inconexo]

If the disk is mine, I can resell it as I want. It's like a book, and don't tell me that reselling books is bad. Once I sell the book, movie or game, I can't see/play it again. So, what's the problem?

And game creators do win with second hand sales. Because many people won't buy so many games if they couldn't resell them later and recover part of their money.

Re:online games

[ThePhilips]

Don't mix game creators with game distributors into the same bag.

In that regard, only the first sale pays.

I suspect that you lack basic knowledge of how the market works. Game developers most of the time get very very limited premium from well selling game - most if not all profits stay with the publishers.

What you say applies better to the self-published indie games - "Game authors get nothing" - but not to the majority of games distributed by big publishers where game authors were already paid in advance for creation of the game.

Keep that up, and soon nobody will create anything anymore. Why feed the leeches? Can't you see that?

Nonsense.

You probably never being around creative people. People create not because of profits - primary goal is to express themselves, to be heard, to be seen. Desire for profit comes much much later.

Re:online games

[SerpentMage]

The problem here is that smart phones I think are killing the game vendors. Sure there are die hard gamers, but that market I would say is saturated. Those who became gamers became, and those who don't game don't. It's a binary thing. Though smart phones on the other hand are attracting a whole lot of people who might have played games and bought one or two games.

I am thinking of the Super Mario or sonic the hedge hog type gamers. Not the halo palyers here. With these restrictions all they will do is demolish their own businesses. It reminds me of the music, books, movie business when the realized that their business models changed. The first reaction and oh so predictable is to restrict! But like music, books, and movies restrictions does not get you very far. In fact it is just makes it that much harder...

Re:online games

[darksabre]

In fact, yes, I think that is as bad. You can't unsee the movie can you? You don't pay for the DVD disk, you pay to see the movie. In case of DVD, as many times as you like.

Bzzt, wrong! When you buy a DVD you are paying to have a licensed copy of that DVD. You can watch it as many times as you like, you can watch it with other people, as many times as you like, you can watch it with different groups of people as many times as you like, you can lend it to other people as many times as you like. It is just like a book. I do not believe that the second hand book market stopped new books being published and neither will a second hand games market stop new games being created.

An experience is not a saleable commodity. You sell a licensed copy of the game. You do not sell the experience of playing that game.

Re:online games

[Anonymous Coward]

Open source is bad on the desktop? I take it you have never used compiz, which is better than MS's window manger? Or perhaps KDE, which is stable and feature rich while not forcing users to spend hours setting things up? How about Firefox or chromium, the 2 most popular web browsers?

Re:online games

[Anonymous Coward]

Second, you make the assumption that you payed for unlimited service for an unlimited time. In practice, however you have a limited amount of time you can play games and a limited amount of time you are willing to spend on this particular game. This is calculated into the price of the game. Each second hand gamer increases this particular amount of time per original sale of the game and thus increases service costs.

The publishers should factor this is in when determining the sale price. It's the publishers' call to decide on whether or not they attempt to block re-sale, but they can't blame consumers if they fail to factor in losses due to re-sale if they don't take this in to account when setting the initial price. I'll happily accept a game being tied to me if I'm getting value from it, just as I do when I purchase stuff from Steam and iTunes.

Re:online games

[SkunkPussy]

No your movie ticket gives you entrance to one performance; you are basically renting that performance.

There is a difference between buying a film and renting a film - likewise there historically has been a difference between buying a game and renting a game.

Re:online games

[JosKarith]

Or cars?

Re:online games

[Vanderhoth]

By the time I'm ready to buy a second hand game I would also know this. For example I didn't run out and buy Dragon Age. As a result I know how buggy it is and will probably just borrow it from my sister if I ever decide I do want to play it. I believe this is a prime example of how the publishers are putting out crappy games on hype and selling them for a mint. Then thinking they'll just fix any issues later instead of fixing them in the first place.

Re:online games

[JosKarith]

"You don't pay for the DVD disk, you pay to see the movie"
Die. That's the kind of "Licensing" bullshit that the media business have been trying to force on us for years. If I buy a DVD, I buy a DVD. If you're saying I'm licensing the right to see the movie then I demand the licensing company send me a replacement DVD every time my copy gets a scratch.

Re:online games

[Ambvai]

First, they look at it differently: each second hand sale is a sale they earn no money from. They consider that a lost sale. This is debatable.

Actually, I'd consider that an excellent example of a lost sale-- a second-hand sale involves a buyer who was perfectly willing to spend money for the product who didn't pay through the standard supply chain. (At least not directly; the original customer did.) What matters is the price here-- if they were willing to pay $U used, they would've paid $U new too. Worse yet, they may have been willing to pay $N new, but since there was a nearly identical version for $U, why pay that premium? (Personally, I like the shiny extras and cheerfully pay more for them, but a lot of people aren't like that.)

Re:online games

[Moryath]

The media companies have been waging war against the consumer for over a century.

- "Copy Protection" - so that consumers can't even safeguard their own purchase. If I want to make a separate copy of a purchased video/game and keep the original in a safe place (someplace where, say, inquisitive dogs and 3-year-olds can't get to it), that should be my right.

- Shrink-wrap licenses. Remember when Adobe tried to sue a company that resold its products, claiming the terms of the (unopened) shrinkwrap license included an agreement not to resell?

And if you want to go WAY back: remember, the book publishers tried to stop the creation of the US's public lending library system. Now, with the terms on eBooks, they're trying to pull the same crap and make it impossible for libraries to still serve their customers.

Re:online games

[LoverOfJoy]

Aside from a few hits, I don't think the PC market has had much success with that. Sure, they've reduced used game sales but they've also reduced overall sales and had to drop prices. Now all the money is in things like Farmville where the new/used issue is a nonfactor.

I think your parent poster got it right that there is considerable risk in doing this to console games. There is a chunk of used gamers who will start to buy SOME new games once used games is no longer an option. But there is another chunk of used gamers (in my opinion a much larger chunk) who will stop buying console games altogether once used games are not an option...at least until the prices of new games drops significantly. Finally, there is a another chunk of gamers that buy new and sell used that will reduce the games they buy once selling games is no longer an option. It is not clear but wouldn't surprise me if the reduction from these gamers is greater than the increase in new game sales from previously used gamers.

If the PC market is any indication, this blocking of resales may simply result in console games dropping in price from $50-60 to $30-50 and a bit of a drop in sales overall.

Personally, I buy almost exclusively used games. The exceptions are the games that I know aren't going to drop much in price on the used market anyway. A high rated Mario/Donkey Kong game? The used prices are going to be so close to new prices for years, I might as well just buy new. Nintendo has found the best way to reduce used game sales. Create quality games with a lot of replay value.

If the used game market suddenly disappeared tomorrow, I'd probably reduce my game buying to the occasional Mario type game on birthdays/christmas along with an occasional game that got raved about via word of mouth.from personal friends I trust. I simply don't have the money to buy all my used games at new game prices.

I think if the car industry tried to do something similar in blocking resales of new cars, there'd be a lot of used car buyers that simply decide to get a motorcycle or use public transportation rather than pay $20,000+ for a new car that they could never sell.

Re:online games

[Tsingi]

I remember a time when games where made to be fun in single player mode. Some of them had a multiplayer mode that didn't requre internet access. I like that sort of games and that is the kind of games I will buy.

Me too. I put my PS3 online and yanked the network cable out half way through reading the license agreement.

I couldn't agree to it.

Re:online games

[L4t3r4lu5]

So why do new release movies on DVD cost more than a deluxe cinema ticket? I would expect your "single experience" DVD to cost pennies compared to the costs of running a whole movie theatre.

Re:online games

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Used game shops make money on each sale. But they didn't make the game. Game authors get nothing. That is why it's bad. Keep that up, and soon nobody will create anything anymore.

Heh. I just have this image in my head of an insanely popular game only selling 1,000 copies, and lots and lots of people spend years patiently waiting for one of those copies to become available at a used game store.

Re:online games

[AngryDeuce]

I love the "nobody will create anything anymore" argument.

There are many people out there that have the drive to create regardless of compensation, be it literature, music, artwork, movies, games, applications. There are thousands upon thousands of free alternatives to pretty much anything out there. There are even scores and scores of free to play MMO's out there now, and that's something people never saw as being a truly viable option for a mainstream game.

Big Content really needs to understand that they don't hold a monopoly on entertainment anymore, and now that so many people have broadband and reasonably good bandwidth, we don't need their mode of delivery necessarily, either. They need to understands this, but they won't, because their business model is built upon antiquated ideas and the arrogance of "just throw whatever we want at consumers and they'll have to buy it because there's no other option". 10 years ago maybe, but today, they're sorely mistaken.

Re:online games

[Osgeld]

A movie ticket is a pass to a 1 time event, 60+ dollars for a physical product is a bit different, and fuck you for telling me what I can and cant do with my own god dammed property

suck my ass mr tator, or should I call you dic

Re:online games

[AngryDeuce]

With this attitude, you will be back to watching TV soon, hero. There will be nothing to play :)

Wanna bet?

Re:online games

[Anonymous Coward]

No sir, people pay for products and services, not "experiences" (not for a movie, not for a game)

When people go to the theater, they're paying for a service: the service of a seat in a room with a screen for a certain time, during which happens to be running a movie. While in the theater, people could completely ignore the movie that's showing and not "experience" it at all during the time (fall asleep, make out with boy/girlfriend, focus on chowing down on the popcorn, etc)

When people buy a DVD, they're buying the actual product: the disk, which happens to have the movie on it. People could actually never fire that DVD up and never "experience" the movie.

No sir, game makers do not sell "the experience of the game", even if they think they are. They sell an arrangement of 0's and 1's (which happen to, if interpreted by the right computer, lead to a game). Of course, they think part of selling this pattern includes the "right" to decide who gets to duplicate or use this pattern.

This "right" however is ridiculous to enforce, as you admitted yourself: you can't unsee a movie, or a game. The idea (of the resulting game/movie) is duplicated the moment it is "experienced", and cannot be undone (short of wiping people's memories...). Furthermore, having an idea duplicated does not mean the maker (you) is now one idea short. See, if somebody buys or steals a physical DVD disk, the disk maker is now short one disk. If somebody buys a seat in a movie theater (service), that's one less seat the theater has to sell to others

But with "experiences", or ideas, having one more person know about it doesn't mean you now have one "less" idea.

Thus, "first sale" cannot be reasonably applied to ideas like it would with goods and services. That is one of the flaws of current IP laws: it's trying to treat ideas like goods and services, and trying to control the spread of ideas like controlling the spread of goods and services.

Don't get me wrong: content makers should be compensated somehow. IP laws came from good intentions, but it is working off on flawed principals, and not keeping up with the changing times (to say the least)

And please drop the fear mongering and doomsaying about how eventually nobody would make content. One doesn't have to look far to see how that's not the case: music and mp3s

For all the music piracy that goes on (and it went on even before mp3s, in the form of cassettes and tapes), the music industry is still around. In fact, the smart ones, instead of clinging to old outdated IP laws, embraced the new technology, and adapted to new business models.

Whether Sony's move is a cling to dated laws or a smart adaptation will depend on the actual execution and implementation. Without more details, more cautious people (and your usual Sony-hating crowd) would of course think it's the former.

Re:online games

[TFAFalcon]

Or cars? How DARE you sell a car after you've sat in it!

Re:online games

[The Moof]

It's also an incredibly blinkered approach that could well backfire.

EA's actually been doing this exact thing for a while now (called "Project $10"). It hasn't backfired on them. I think Sony let EA take the "might backfire" plunge 2 years ago and watched how it played out. EA didn't seem damaged by it, so Sony is adopting it for their first party games now. And, of course, games have no say short of just not buying a game. Unfortunately, I have no faith that gamers will ever vote with their wallets (as was proven by the paid DLC push/uproar years and years back).

I do have to say that EA did the "Project $10" thing right once. There is no multiplayer on "Alice: Madness Returns." Instead of punishing used game purchasers (via crippling the game), the rewarded new game purchasers by giving the a free copy of the original "American McGee's Alice."

Re:online games

[AngryDeuce]

I remember a time when games where made to be fun in single player mode. Some of them had a multiplayer mode that didn't requre internet access.

I know, I miss single player games, too. Especially single player first person shooters. What does the average nonRPG clock in at nowadays, 6 hours of single player gameplay? Maybe 10 at the most?

I'm betting in a few years single player modes are going to be nothing but the multiplayer with bots, like Brink. I'm tired of it, after playing through Modern Warfare 2 in two sittings, I vowed to never buy another game with less than 10 hours of single player gameplay. It's just not worth it to me. Better to "borrow it" on the pirate bay, honestly, because once you've been teabagged by a 12 year old yelling racial slurs into the microphone in one shooter's multiplayer, you've pretty much experienced all of them.

Re:online games

[Vanderhoth]

LMAO!!! Thanks for the great laugh now I have to clean the coffee of my second monitor.

There are people out there right now developing games for free because they love doing it. There are also very cheap highly entertaining games, Minecraft is one of my favorites at the moment. I've convinced both my sisters, my brother and their significant others to play as well and for the price the entertainment can't be beet. There will always been things to play and if your industry was doing things right you'd have good profit without having to put God knows how much into DRM schemes and treating your customers like thieves.

Re:online games

[hamburgler007]

While I don't agree with this at all, I don't think the parent post merits a troll mod either.

Re:online games

[AngryDeuce]

Maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture here, but what difference does it make, from the perspective of the game publisher, whether I play the game for 2 years, using the services provided, or I play the game for 1 year and someone else plays the game for another extra year?

It makes a difference because in their eyes they equate anyone experiencing the content without getting it directly from them as a lost sale, while at the same time being willfully ignorant of the fact that stuff like this does more to inhibit sales of a game than piracy or used sales EVER did.

Re:online games

[hlavac]

but not to the majority of games distributed by big publishers where game authors were already paid in advance for creation of the game.

Game developers most of the time get very very limited premium from well selling game - most if not all profits stay with the publishers.

Used to be like that. Not true for us anymore, thank god. I guess our management has learned a lesson. We got burned by a big publisher deal once already.
We now do self distribution, Steam, and have some localized deals with publishers in some areas. Much bigger share of profit gets to us now. Seems to work, so far...

Re:online games

[zach_the_lizard]

The library eBook thing sort of makes sense to me: a digital copy can be reproduced almost infinitely for almost no cost. Everyone could rent a book from a digital library for free. I for one would welcome this future of free reading material.

Re:online games

[Vanderhoth]

I think the issue really is they just realized they weren't getting anywhere with their battle against piracy. All they're doing is causing headaches for people who legitimately buy the game, which in turn is turning them to piracy. Now game companies are shifting focus. Soon they'll find that's going to cost them even more. What do you think someone waking into a store and only seeing games for $60 is going to do when they only have $40 for a game? I imagine they'll run home and download it instead of buying it.

Re:online games

[Anonymous Coward]

So very true. I certainly won't be able to play all the free games out there, and I know for a fact that nobody ever creates for the joy of it. Possibly rather than whining about the fact that not everyone wants to pay $60 for a game that has 10 hours of entertainment value, you could learn to develop games that either sell for less (so the price point is closer to used and therefore has a larger share of new sales,) or spend time developing additional content that can be sold for more revenue. Apparently though, you are so busy expecting to be paid forever for a number of hours of work that you can spend your day whining on slashdot rather than providing value to your employer

Re:online games

[elrous0]

Dude, this is MONEY we're talking here. Sony doesn't give a shit if they're being fair. They don't give a shit about reasoning. If you're selling someone a used game, that's a customer lost who MAY have otherwise bought the game new. They see that as money out of their pocket.

And it's not just Sony. The same applies to just about every game publisher out there. Why do you think the PC game publishers were so happy to kill off the used market for PC games? They WILL move to do the same for console games. It's only a matter of time.

Re:online games

[calmofthestorm]

Bad analogies are like artichokes flying to the moon.

Re:online games

[Vanderhoth]

I'm in agreement with you.

If you look it up you'll see after killing the second hand market for PC games the sale of PC games in general dropped off and piracy became a much larger issue on the platform. Of course standard correlation/causation statement applies.

I guess the other plus side to killing the second hand market is that if consoles follow the same trend as PC games we'll see the prices drop too. I think killing the second hand market is a very stupid move on the publishers part because, as others have stated, not being able to re-sell a game decreases it's value. Overall that means less profit for the publishers. At which point they'll turn around and blame piracy again.

Re:online games

[Totenglocke]

Not to mention that for a few thousand years artists created plenty while only getting paid once (if at all) for their work instead of being paid millions of times for doing one item of work.

Re:online games

[HAKdragon]

You buy a game brand new, the publisher / developers get a cut as well as the game system manufacturer if any. You decide to sell it to gamestop, gamestop buys your $60 game for $25 and sells it for $40. Someone comes in, see's that game for $60 NEW or $40 USED, they see no difference in the two, they pay gamestop $40 and gamestop see's all the profit to themselves.

 
And this is the exact same issue when dealing with just about any store that specializes in used goods regardess if it's games, books, CDs, DVDs/blueray, etc.

Re:online games

[Toonol]

I don't think so. They still are supporting one copy of the game. One game, one potential person utilizing online services. That doesn't change when the game is resold; it's just a different person going online.

They hope that nobody will be using the online services of the game a year after the initial purchase, but that's not something they're necessarily entitled to enforce.

Re:online games

[bberens]

The quality of the car and other products goes down after use. The bits that make up the video game do not degrade over time.

Re:online games

[bberens]

To clarify, I'm not suggesting you shouldn't sell your used games. Just saying it's different than your used car or whatever.

Re:online games

[ThePhilips]

We now do self distribution, Steam [...]

And why the hell then you complain about S/H games? which do not exist in digital distribution?

The problem with passcodes, RTFA, that it renders the whole market of S/H console games of disks defunct. Which is rather vital as the largest demographics - teens - simply do not have money to buy new games as often as they are released. Unless the price isn't offset by sale of old games.

[...] and have some localized deals with publishers in some areas. Much bigger share of profit gets to us now. Seems to work, so far...

I wonder how much games you sell downloads vs. disks? If it works for you, I expect that digital downloads to dominate.

P.S. Bigger problem would be that game developers need to learn to be nicer to their customers. "Take care of your customers and business would take care of itself." But there is this tradition, especially in console markets, where they sell games like bottled water: buy it for what it is, even though probably we make it in commercials appear more than what it actually is, and removed few common sense feature everybody was taking for granted.

Re:online games

[Totenglocke]

First, it's not debatable that a "second hand sale is a lost sale". People who buy second hand can't / won't pay $60+ for a game (hence why they're buying used - did you think it was because they just wanted the scratches on the disk and missing instruction manual?) If they want to increase sales to the people who buy used games, they need to lower prices. It's not like they aren't making billions and billions of dollars already.

Second, if you buy a game that has a single-player mode, you ARE paying for unlimited game-play from now until your copy of the game / your system stops working. Online games, you're right, you are paying for a limited amount of server time. However, decent companies realize that servers don't cost THAT much and keep them up for a very long time (Diablo, Diablo II, and Starcraft come to mine - all up for more than a decade). Decent companies realize that there's a reason to provide a good experience for your customer and they can also make a profit off those older games still as a result.

Re:online games

[Anonymous Coward]

Have to post anonymously so I don't lose your insightful vote. It's a shame someone gets modded a troll just because people don't like what you're saying.

The counter to your argument is, why does it cost companies to run online play? Why are companies even running online play at all? The reason Valve has always been able to operate online play for free is simply because they don't. They run the server browsers, or matchmaking service, but the users run the actual game servers on their own dime. Hardcore users and clans will shell out for co-located dedicated servers. Other users might play on those for free, or might intermittently host a game. New users will join the community, not scared away by a monthly charge, or an additional fee to activate online play.

Valve doesn't even charge for their dedicated servers. They give it away for free to anyone who wants to run one. It's a model that has worked for 15 years now, and continues to work. I don't understand why other game companies insist on running all their own online servers, and then shutting the whole thing down when they don't feel like maintaining it any longer. It's almost like they want a way to force obsolescence, requiring users to go out and purchase the next game, rather than continue using an existing one.

Re:online games

[Lumpy]

Also we don't have any games now. Because used games have been available longer than the "coder" above has been alive. I remember buying Atart 2600 carts used as a kid.

Yup the video game industry is doomed because of used sales... I wonder if this guy has more fairy tales.

I blame the lack of good games on the no talent hacks working at Game development companies.

Re:online games

[man_the_king]

And each book cost tens of millions to create as well, right?

Re:online games

[Lumpy]

http://2dboy.com/games.php

these guys have made more money by being HONEST than your company has ever hoped to make.

That's the problem, Game makers prefer to be dishonest and criminal instead of honest. If your game sells for more than $25.00. You are dishonest.

Re:online games

[Anonymous Coward]

That model works with MMOs because those systems need large interlinked server farms to handle the tens of thousands of users in a shared environment. There is no choice but to spend a huge amount on servers. When your game only runs a few dozen people in the same environment, you can run it on any modern desktop, with a decent high speed connection. If the developer doesn't want to pay for servers for their users to continue playing, the users themselves could run the servers. What a novel idea! So why do so developers insist on not releasing the dedicated server application to their games?

Re:online games

[djnforce9]

@cgeys: Well I wouldn't go as far to call you a "Troll" but there is a gaping flaw in your argument. That "copy" of the game has already been "paid for" at one point so Sony has been compensated in that sense. What does it matter "who" is currently using the game? It's not like multiple people can play online with the same game disc thereby increasing costs for Sony. For some reason, certain companies seem to feel entitled to receive money every time their games exchanges hands. The ONLY way I can see them actually losing anything (or at least the "opportunity" to make money) is if someone chooses to buy something "used" instead of new so their funds go to the retailer and the game company gets nothing. That still doesn't affect the number of people playing online though.

Re:online games

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes a difference because in their eyes they equate anyone experiencing the content without getting it directly from them as a lost sale, while at the same time being willfully ignorant of the fact that stuff like this does more to inhibit sales of a game than piracy or used sales EVER did.

This is so true. I normally buy games new, except for a few years back when Rockband first came out. Way more expensive than I would pay. So, I didn't buy it. Ended up buying it off a guy for a substantial discount and then I went on a song and peripheral buying frenzy. So, they didn't get my initial sale, but they ended up getting a whole lot more afterwards. Imagine if this was banned or made substantially harder: That guy would have just left the game in his basement (no money for them) and I wouldn't have ever bought the game (no money for them). It just doesn't make sense to me why they are doing this...

Re:online games

[hairyfeet]

So the discs don't get scratched? Manuals don't get lost? Cover art don't get screwed up? Wow good to know. Oh wait, that's right...bullshit.

Lets be honest folks, if they want to do that for someone online service they are paying for? no problem there though I would argue a well designed game shouldn't need a corp to run the server in the first place, but okay, still roll with it. But when you kill the single player through your DRM BS just to force another sale? Yeah please go fuck yourself Mr Game dev.

Off the top of my head games I still have installed and play on my Win 7 HP gamer PC at home...No One Lives Forever I&II, Freelancer, Freespace, hell after seeing the shitastic Duke Nukem Forever I even dug out my old Duke Nukem Atomic edition to enjoy some good Duke.

So if you want to charge for your online service? Go right ahead, servers cost money and we understand (even if that shows your design sucks) even if it isn't the best situation for the customer. But killing single player is like setting a self destruct on books to make sure nobody can check them out at the library. companies go out of business, tits do go up on occasion.

I would also add if they are gonna do this BS then games should have expiration dates no different than milk, since it is gonna go bad and I don't want to have to research just to buy a game without getting screwed.

Re:online games

[Raenex]

And each book cost tens of millions to create as well, right?

Then consider the movie industry. I remember when I was young and the VCR and movie rentals were going to destroy the industry. Somehow they seemed to survive.

Re:online games

[cheekyjohnson]

if they were willing to pay $U used, they would've paid $U new too.

This is just an assumption. They could be boycotting the company that made the game (and thus do not wish to give them money but still want to play the game). Damn that potential loss of potential profit!

Re:online games

[cheekyjohnson]

Seriously, this "omg he's a shill" shit on /. needs to stop.

Everyone that disagrees with me is obviously a shill.

At the same time I also understand (and acknowledge) that open source software has serious problems on desktop and especially with usability, because that is the truth.

That would depend on who you ask, would it not?

Re:online games

[cheekyjohnson]

That potential loss of potential profit is absolutely crippling for game companies. Soon we won't have any games at all!

Re:online games

[GameboyRMH]

That's right car buyers! Keep 'degrading' those cars by driving them around for a year and then selling the rotten used-up husks that are left over for $10k-$20k less than you paid for them! I'll gladly take that scrap off your hands!

Re:online games

[GameboyRMH]

It hurts the game developers by denying them a fair share of profit. It's the same as for-profit piracy. Disclosure: I work for a game development company.

Well here you have it folks, straight from the horse's mouth. Used game sales are as bad as for-profit piracy. Game developers, unlike other software developers, are entitled to be paid whenever their software is used. Otherwise it's THEFT!

Re:online games

[GameboyRMH]

You are insane with rent-seeking greed. It might be because you're underpaid and overworked, a lot of game developers are, that's why I didn't go into the industry. You should get out of it as soon as you can.

Re:online games

[GameboyRMH]

That's OK, we don't need the junk the big game companies are squeezing out these days anyway. Like Hollywood they've become afraid to do anything different, staggering development costs have made the stakes too high to take any risks. They make things that are fairly enjoyable but horribly overpriced, and then on those awful consoles they nickle-and-dime you to death with DLC and turn the online world into a shitty-graphics version of the IRL rat race by offering items that give players an advantage for money. And then there's the motion-control gimmick.

It's not fun anymore.

Re:online games

[mldi]

Bingo! The word 'copyright' has been twisted to favor the publishing company, when in reality, it's supposed to outline a set of rights consumers have with copies of works they purchase. If anything, the publishing companies (RIAA, MPAA, and now many in the video games industry) are the ones who have been violating copyright laws.

Re:online games

[mldi]

Wait, so I can't charge someone the cost of a recliner every time they experience reclining in it?

Re:online games

[shentino]

The reason you usually pay more for a DVD than you do a ticket at the theatre is the fact that you can reuse the DVD as a durable medium.

Much the same reason if you buy a recliner instead of rent it you pay more as a capital investment, but don't have to pay over time.

Re:online games

[feepness]

The exceptions are the games that I know aren't going to drop much in price on the used market anyway. A high rated Mario/Donkey Kong game? The used prices are going to be so close to new prices for years, I might as well just buy new. Nintendo has found the best way to reduce used game sales. Create quality games with a lot of replay value.

This is simply incorrect on the face of it. Released in 2007, Super Mario Galaxy goes for around $20 on Ebay. The sequel, SMG2, goes for around $30 used, being about a year old. This is a 40% discount. Both games were very highly rated.

Re:online games

[man_the_king]

Are you saying the games industry and the movie industry are similar? Because from what I understand, both of them don't work the same way.

Also, if I understand correctly, this is for the Online MP aspect of the games, NOT for the SP games themselves. If so, I can kinda-sorta understand their reasoning in that, the Game Devs and Publishers are willing to support Online Play for people who have paid THEM (Publishers and by extension, Developers) for the game, and that they will NOT support Online Play for people who have NOT paid them for the game. In my opinion, that perspective seems reasonable, if a bit extreme.

Re:online games

[metamatic]

EA's actually been doing this exact thing for a while now (called "Project $10"). It hasn't backfired on them.

That'll be why their revenue has been dropping since 2009, right?

Re:online games

[Raenex]

Are you saying the games industry and the movie industry are similar? Because from what I understand, both of them don't work the same way.

They both sell copyrightable products that take millions of dollars to make. You can rent both, and you can sell used copies of both. It was initially claimed that rentals would destroy the industry, as "hlavac" was claiming "Keep that up, and soon nobody will create anything anymore." with regards to used games.

Your complaint to the previous poster was that books don't cost tens of millions to make. Now you are complaining because... well I don't know, you didn't say exactly what difference ruins the analogy.

Also, if I understand correctly, this is for the Online MP aspect of the games

The comments in this sub-thread were in response to hlavac's outrageous claim about used games being immoral in general and killing the industry.

Re:online games

[Requiem18th]

I see arguments like those all the time and while they might be right, they might as well be wrong.

Yes, killing the used game market sale means some people would happily buy the game won' at first. But being left out feels like shit and some would buy it anyway.

Yes, killing the used game market means that some people who would happily buy the game used won't but some people that really want that game would painfully bite the bullet and buy new anyway.

So killing the used game market might or might not negatively affect the bottom line. It is an open question that calls for professionally conducted analysis. Given that Sony probably spends more on marketing than in actually making good games. It's very probable that they have figured out that subverting the law, voiding the first sale doctrine, trampling over peoples rights, pissing everybody and being general ass-holes all around might just be the most lucrative option.

So I don't think it is so much a problem of them not being market smart as much as it's a problem of them being greedy pigs.

A solution should would be to make a player's guild or union of sorts. Just like entities like the MPAA unabashedly exists solely to promote the interest of international media conglomerates.

Re:online games

[wagnerrp]

Actually, the argument is that the average user might play online for six months, using maybe 200 hours of server time. That server cost is accounted for in the original purchase price of the game. Now that user gets tired, and sells the game to someone else, who now plays for another four months and 150 hours of server time. Since the new user hasn't paid any additional, that skews the average server usage per copy up, cutting into the publisher's margins. It's a perfectly valid argument that they would claim requires a rise in initial sales cost to make up the difference.

Now the perfectly valid counterpoint to that is that the publisher should not be running game servers in the first place. If the game is good, a community will form around it and provide the servers. As long as there are users that want to play the game, there will be servers available to play on. Valve has used that model for fifteen years now, and iD used it before them (yes I realize Valve games are now locked to a Steam account and non-transferable). Releasing a dedicated server open to the public would negate any of that extra cost incurred by resold games. Of course, if they don't control the game servers, they can't force the game into obsolescence, and force purchase of the sequel.

Re:online games

[grumbel]

whether I play the game for 2 years, using the services provided, or I play the game for 1 year and someone else plays the game for another extra year?

You wouldn't play the game for two years, but maybe just for a month or two (or at least the average gamer would), then sell it. Thus the publishers would have to pay your server costs and the server costs for the person who you sold it to and then whoever they sold it to when they got bored with it. Thus in the end the server cost multiply due to used sales, while they income from used sales stays zero.

The game has been payed for, and that includes the 'right' to the services for however long I wish

No it doesn't. You buy no right, the publisher is just nice enough to let you play online however long he likes and if he things players had enough he will pull the plug or start with online pass stuff to get his share of the used game sales pot.

generator

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an important initiative as it allows us to accelerate our commitment to enhancing premium online services across our first party game portfolio.

is there a generator to make that kind of text? who the hell comes up with things like that, do they believe it themselves?

Re:generator

[RivenAleem]

I think that such a generator would break one of the Linguistodynamic Laws, it being a perpetual drivel machine.

Re:generator

[SniperJoe]

Yes. It's called a "Director of Marketing."

That kind of text tends to happen when there are meetings between marketing and legal (what an unholy union that must be).

They plan to use this on all games

[geekrule]

Really in this press release, they say to use such system on all online games released in 2012...
Fucking sony...

Foot, Trip, *BLAM*

[undulato]

I didn't miss PSN much either really when it disappeared. Am I core gaming market or disposable fuddy duddy?

Single Player Access

[TheSpoom]

Game company using this technology to restrict any access to the game whatsoever to the first buyer in 3... 2...

Re:Single Player Access

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you are late and this was already done, look up the latest Capcom controversy about a permanent save that you cannot delete and that prevents you from playing the game from the start...

Re:Single Player Access

[sqlrob]

See Bionic Commando Rearmed. It's online, bound to the purchasing account which must be online.

Re:Single Player Access

[demonbug]

Game company using this technology to restrict any access to the game whatsoever to the first buyer in 3... 2...

Already happened, see Steam.

Re:Single Player Access

[h4rr4r]

Which is why they have such steep discounts. Lack of resale value does that. I will gladly pay $5-$10 for a game, at that price I don't even care about resale.

Re:Single Player Access

[Anonymous Coward]

Game company using this technology to restrict any access to the game whatsoever to the first buyer in 3... 2...

You're getting too carried away.

The big companies don't want to kill second hand and rental sales, not exactly. This is, after all, a bonus for them in terms of distribution. They aren't paying to make and ship those hard-copies again, or the bandwidth when people download it.
So logically, they'll sell passes for used games too... for about the same price it is just to buy it new.

Few people play for 2 years

[AwaxSlashdot]

whether I play the game for 2 years, using the services provided, or I play the game for 1 year and someone else plays the game for another extra year

In theory, there are no difference.
In reality, almost no one plays for 2 years : most players stays only a few weeks or months and switch to a new game.

So, it is much more easy to find 2 players playing for 1 year than 1 player playing for 2.

The game has been payed for, and that includes the 'right' to the services for however long I wish.

And its price has been established on the statistical cost of usage. Ask Sony for perpetual right to resale your game without feature loss, and they'll be happy to give you a sell you a more expensive version.

Re:Few people play for 2 years

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this is about consoles but bear with me.

The old way:

Create an entire game full of good content, tools for player created content, provide a server to find other players wanting to play, and provide users the ability to host their own games via lan/internet. Copy protection consists of a cd key validated on install and the need to have a cd in the drive the later annoyance being trivial for savy users to bypass. Players are free to sell their copy/pick up a used one etc.

New way:

Create half as much content, provide no tools for player created content and force players to connect to company servers to avoid piracy even when playing a single player. Provide second half of game as a combination of downloadable content and in game items you have to pay real life money for ensuring the rich are better than us in fantasy land as well as driving nicer cars in real life.

Meanwhile random drm scheme237 may or may not work with your system before or after joe average spends an hour yelling at dell tech support and reinstallling his OS and the decreased interest due to all of the above and the lack of a cheap used and or rental market may mean your game stops making money sooner rather than later at which point the servers shut down negating your ability to even play the game you paid for. At that point joe complains on the forums and is banned for life by one of the Indian tech support agents[game company] is using to save money losing access to the rest of his games. Phone calls to tech support are answered as follows Welcome to [game company] tech support my name is Bob how may I be helping you with your problem today sir in some barely comprehensible initiation of English. All further communication fails...

God damn the future of gaming looks bright!

 

Re:Few people play for 2 years

[digitig]

Or, put more simply...

Translation

[MadTinfoilHatter]

Sony's explanation for the Pass will probably leave you wishing Google Translate supported marketing-speak: "This is an important initiative as it allows us to accelerate our commitment to enhancing premium online services across our first party game portfolio."

Let me do the honors: "Bend over suckers."

Re:Translation

[ledow]

Hell, I had to translate your translation:

lagniappe = small gift given by a merchant, apparently. Are you in Louisiana because that's apparently the only place in the entire world that you're likely to run into that word.

Re:Translation

[pedalman]

Bend over and say, "Aaahhhh!!", suckers. There, fixed it for you.

Re:Translation

[Registered Coward v2]

Hell, I had to translate your translation:

lagniappe = small gift given by a merchant, apparently. Are you in Louisiana because that's apparently the only place in the entire world that you're likely to run into that word.

No, but I have been there.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is an important initiative...

The suites in the company see this as a way of making more high profit margins.

... as it allows us to accelerate our commitment ...

Fluffy excuse to why they haven't done anything new lately. It's all because of not forcing you to have an internet account to play your game by golly!

... to enhancing premium online services ...

Charge you more money to play online or purchase micro-transactions.

... across our first party game portfolio."

For anything made by Sony. Sorry 3rd parties. All profits belong to us!

What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a vast difference between running an mmo and constantly creating new content and experiences for players and putting up a server that serves to tell player A player B just hosed him with a railgun.

The cost of hosting a server to allow players to connect with each other and player is a cost of doing business associated with convincing joe blow he would like to fork over $60 for the game $20 for DLC and $5 for some imaginary property within the game. Not only that but having active online gaming going on entices others to play and pay as well. Suck it the fuck up and move on.

If Sony manages to effectively kill/damage the rental/used market within their little ecosystem the net effect will be to convince people they really ought to try to xbox 720 or whatever the fuck they end up calling it.

We seem to be transitioning towards an increasingly consumer unfriendly game market that I just am not interested in.

Re:What a crock

[speculatrix]

the net effect will be to convince people they really ought to try to xbox
and what makes you think Microsoft won't adopt this model too?

face it, we're moving to an economy where we rent everything... rent music through monthly subs, rent games through one-time activation keys, rent computer software through one-time-activation keys, rent mobile phones through monthly service charges which subsidise the handset...

the lawyers would argue that, effectively, we already did, we simply paid a one-off licensing fee to rent the item indefinitely and never owned the item only the physical "container".

Re:What a crock

[grumbel]

and what makes you think Microsoft won't adopt this model too?

They are already doing it. To play online, even when the game is new, on Xbox360 you have to pay them $5 a month, while multiplayer on PS3 is free or whatever the cost of the PSN pass is per game when bought used with a used code.

easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Switch game consoles and do your voting with your wallet.

RIP First-sale doctrine

[PSVMOrnot]

Yet another stab at consumer rights.

Up until about 2010 games were considered sold since they weren't expected to be returned, and as such were subject to the first-sale doctrine. Of course then the US courts go and decide that it's all fine and dandy for EULAs to remove this right. *grumble grumble* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine]

In my day you had a disc, and that was your game. You could play it, lend it to a friend, sell it, turn it into a shuriken (though that was mostly done with AOL cds). I miss that.

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[StormReaver]

They're just games, so don't buy them. There are far, far better ways to spend your time. Odds are that you've already played every game on the market, anyway, just under a different name or brand.

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[Anonymous Coward]

Then buy DRM-free games and support the developers who think like you.

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[asylumx]

There are far, far better ways to spend your time.

Like posting on Slashdot?

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[blahplusplus]

"Then buy DRM-free games and support the developers who think like you."

Morons and ignorant people out-number discerning members of the population by a large margin. You can't change a society that is completely moronic/ignorant and simply doesn't care.

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[Anonymous Coward]

First-sale doctrine only means that the manufacturer can not use LEGAL means to prevent you from reselling the product after first-sale (i.e. suing you). It doesn't require that manufacturer design the product so that it is can be resold for any value, that would be ridiculous.

In this case you can resell the game disc all you want they won't stop you, and they can't legally because of first-sale doctrine. Getting someone to pay anything for your disc on second hand sale is your problem not theirs.

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[Anonymous Coward]

In my day you had a disc, and that was your game. You could play it, lend it to a friend, sell it, turn it into a shuriken (though that was mostly done with AOL cds). I miss that.

Luxury! Back in MY day, we had cartridges! They were bulky and made of nigh-invulnerable forged Nintendium!

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[MareLooke]

At least you can repost someone else's drivel without restrictions here...

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[Anonymous Coward]

There are far, far better ways to spend your time.

Like posting on Slashdot?

Hey, someone has to be the voice of self-righteousness around here. Remember, your hobbies are a waste of time, while mine are wholesome and fulfilling!

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[tepples]

Then buy DRM-free games

They don't make those for consoles, and they tend not to make certain genres of game at all for PCs.

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[ultranova]

They're just games, so don't buy them. There are far, far better ways to spend your time.

They're just games, so don't buy them. There are far, far better ways to get them.

Well, it's only been 170 years. I'm sure game developers get the memo any day now. Not that it matters to me, since I nowadays get most of my games from Steam, it being convenient and having a lot of cheap ones - however, a "third-party DRM" is a deal-breaker.

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[speculatrix]

Luxury! Back in MY day, we had to make our punch cards from the images printed in magazines, and if you so much as had one hanging chad, the game would crash!!

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[Seumas]

What frustrates me is that there are a ton of apologists who say that this trend in gaming is justified, because acquiring a game through any other means than paying full launch day retail price for a brand new game is somehow evil as hell. These same people completely ignore the point that this directly impacts even the first owner of the item. While I don't agree with it, it's one thing to say "when the game is sold used, you have to pay another $10 to unlock online access for it". It's quite another to say "every person who plays this game online has to pay another $10".

What about all of those multiplayer households? What about siblings, roommates, spouses, friends dropping by? This is no different than saying you have to pay higher fees for internet access, cable television access, board games, a deck of cards, a land phone line, a DVD, a CD, a book, etc.

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with the first sale doctrine since this is not about the software in question but more about a second hand "service" that is provided after purchase.

I know gamers sense of entitlement is great, but there should be acknowledgement of the different situation that has been brought about thanks to the inclusion of online based services.

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just a Shakespeare play, so don't buy a ticket. There are far, far better ways to spend your time...

Yeah, not all art and culture are equally good or enjoyable, but your argument sucks.

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[Xest]

It's actually worse than just that. Take Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit and it's online pass for example. I had to activate this one time code to use it on my console in my gaming room, now if my girlfriend wants to play online using her profile on the XBox in the living room then she has to pay for a new pass representing a more than 33% rise in the cost of the game for two of us to be able to play it online. She could use my account of course, but what about when I want to play something else online with someone else and she wants to play that? We can't do that.

These online passes are a horrendous rape of consumer rights, they're a horrific money grab, and basically force houses with more than one gamer to buy the game once per gamer. It's not even simply 2nd hand sales that are destroyed here- it's use of the game by more than one family member in the same household.

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[Anonymous Coward]

That's like saying "Don't read a book/listen to music/watch a movie/or do anything because it is all the same and they're a waste of time".

People are going to do what they want to do: Play games, try to make "something" of themselves, or do naughty things with vegetables.

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[ildon]

Uh, the game industry has been moving in this direction for at least 3 years, and it doesn't really have much to do with the U.S. (at least, no more than any other country) nor EULAs (no one's going to bother making a new account for every game and then include the account info with the game when they sell it to Gamestop anyway, so the EULA prohibiting this type of thing is completely moot).

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[xero314]

I think you are misunderstanding what the PSN pass is. Look at the title of it and you might understand. This is not a pass to play the game one time, or by the original owner, it's a pass to play the game on the PlayStation Network. It's a pass that authorizes access to Sony's online service.

The PSN Pass does not restricted resale of the product. They can still be resold, and used after resale. What you can't do after resale, without purchasing a new PSN pass, is to access that games services on the PSN.

This has nothing at all to do with first-sale doctrine. Like many other products in history, this is about a service attached to the product, that does not transfer rights. If you have ever purchased a car, or any electronics you should already be familiar with this process. The warranty that you receive on most purchase is for the original purchaser only. So if you sell a car, or other warrantied product, and it is still under warranty, it will no longer be under warranty for the new owner. At least in this case, you can purchase a PSN pass even as the second owner.

In my day you had a disc, and that was your game. You could play it, lend it to a friend, sell it, turn it into a shuriken (though that was mostly done with AOL cds). I miss that.

And under this process you can still do all of those things. What you can't do is transfer your access to the online service. Well you can, but you would have to transfer your entire PSN account, which might be a violation of the EULA, but since i never considered doing it I'm not positive.

This is an absolute boon to those of us that don't play online, but do like to play the single player version of online games. In theory the resale cost will go down, since the resold version will not have online access included. Take $10 of the second hand resale cost and charge $10 for a PSN pass and everyone wins (expect gamestop, but you won't see me crying over that). This way the prices stay the same, while the service provide has more money to spend on maintaining and improving the service. And if you don't want to use the online service, your cost actually goes down (for second hand games). I just wish they would reduce the cost for original sale and make the online component an extra cost for those that want it.

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there are also free games. For instance, here is a link to the pygame.org page for the Thera project. Thera is not exactly finished, but it is playable. It also happens to be open source software.

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[Eudeyrn]

At least you can repost someone else's drivel without restrictions here...

"This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original..."

Slashdot doesn't respect the first sale doctrine!

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[Anonymous Coward]

That assumes content makers will magically have more development time to make the new content as value added service. They don't.

This is actually a bad thing for those who only play single player, as developers would be pressured to focus more on the online content rather than the offline single player.

There's also no guarantee that the price (first-sale or used) of the game will decrease either. You're assuming companies will pass on their savings on to the consumers, especially the used-game stores, since they aren't getting any savings or earnings from this.

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[xero314]

This is actually a bad thing for those who only play single player, as developers would be pressured to focus more on the online content rather than the offline single player.

That is a distinct possibility. It will be interesting to watch that play out. But having been watching the video game industry for many years, I can say that every time we hear about something being the end of single player games, it never turns out to come true. Right now to many games have online multiplayer tacked on with no really effort put into them. If online multiplayer is actually a revenue generator, rather than merely a cost, then we may actually see an improvement in online multiplayer that will be inciting to those of us that have so far shied away from it.

You're assuming companies will pass on their savings on to the consumers, especially the used-game stores, since they aren't getting any savings or earnings from this.

No actually, I'm making an even less likely assumption, that consumers will refuse to buy second hand games at the current prices if they have to pay extract for online content. I freely admit that assuming consumers will do anything in their best interests is a far stretch, but I am trying to maintain hope that people will do the right thing. As for original purchase, I don't expect the price to change at all, I think hope that Sony's claim of improved online service will actually come about. Even though I don't usually play online, anything that improves for my fellow gamers is something I support.

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[hedwards]

Yes, but what happens when something like DNF, FO:NV or BM:AC comes out? Of those titles only Batman is going to be free of a Steam infestation and it's unlikely that the PS3 versions of games will be free of this bullshit.

You can boycott, but you end up hurting yourself and the industry tends to use the sales figures as evidence that there isn't enough DRM rather than that individuals are being scared off by increasingly onerous restrictions on what they can do with their own property.

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a distinct possibility. It will be interesting to watch that play out. But having been watching the video game industry for many years, I can say that every time we hear about something being the end of single player games, it never turns out to come true. Right now to many games have online multiplayer tacked on with no really effort put into them. If online multiplayer is actually a revenue generator, rather than merely a cost, then we may actually see an improvement in online multiplayer that will be inciting to those of us that have so far shied away from it.

It's not about the death of single player. Single player can still be there, but when the dev's resources are shifted to multiplayer, the quality and/or quantity of the single player content will be impacted.

Maybe the focus on multiplayer would entice people who haven't gone online before to do so, but the point is the single player part could be diminished for those who still like to stick with single player.

No actually, I'm making an even less likely assumption, that consumers will refuse to buy second hand games at the current prices if they have to pay extract for online content. I freely admit that assuming consumers will do anything in their best interests is a far stretch, but I am trying to maintain hope that people will do the right thing. As for original purchase, I don't expect the price to change at all, I think hope that Sony's claim of improved online service will actually come about. Even though I don't usually play online, anything that improves for my fellow gamers is something I support.

I was responding you under the context of "this is an absolute boon to those of us that don't play online, but do like to play the single player version of online games". I was talking about those who don't play online, and remains that way, not people who switch to online (and refrain from buying used)

For those who don't play online, it doesn't matter if the original price is $10 cheaper. As long game stop is still charging cheaper, people can still get what they want (the single player) buying second hand, without gamestop having to change their price.

Sony might be hurting less (from those who switched to buying new for the online), but gamestop will still be making a good deal of money (and maybe, just maybe, they'll start dealing in PSN passes somehow behind Sony's back, just like they did with the games)

Now, I don't hate Sony, and I hope things work out for both Sony and the gamers, but this move on its own promotes online play, not single player. Whether single player will be improved largely depends on the game devs themselves (if they can increase their productivity to keep releasing a good single player portion while providing more online content as extra service)

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[mattack2]

So, you returned the game, got your money back, and wrote letter(s) to the publisher of the game and Microsoft, explaining why you returned the game and won't buy another that uses similar methods.... riiiiiight?

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[sixsixtysix]

if that "service" is a part of the game, as sold (i.e. online play), then it is not secondary at all. that has nothing to do with entitlement. if a game is sold with online play as a feature, it should work out of the box: used, new or otherwise.

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[sixsixtysix]

the problem is that there are no alternatives for online play other than PSN. that itself is the fucking problem. if overhead costs are the issue, the best answer is to allow for non-PSN services. hell, make the game developer or publisher run the services for each game. it' pretty retarded to prop up a walled garden, then complain about the costs that arise solely because of it.

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[Xest]

Can't return the game if it's used, didn't really realise the problem until my girlfriend got her XBox.

Did write a formal complaint to trading standards though, which should be far more effective than contacting EA and Microsoft who simply wont give a shit about your letters.

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[grumbel]

In my day you had a disc, and that was your game. You could play it, lend it to a friend, sell it, turn it into a shuriken (though that was mostly done with AOL cds). I miss that.

And speaking about good old times, I remember a time when some games had a network install option, that would allow you to install a multiplayer-only version of the game and play on up to three computers for multiplayer gameplay over the network.

Re:RIP First-sale doctrine

[im_thatoneguy]

It's almost as if DRM free games aren't profitable enough to produce...

I'm very pro consumer-rights. But used games are just bad for the industry all around. It's better to pirate a game and buy another than to buy two at half price used. At least one developer actually got 100% of the money instead of two developers getting nothing.

The only group which benefits from used game sales is the used games retailer. They make more off of each sale than the actual developer.

I would also argue that unlike movies or music games can't recoup the benefits of a rental structure from volume. Where someone might buy dozens of albums they usually only buy a handful of games per year.

Play on lan? personal servers???

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, fine, It's ok if they allow gamers to setup their own servers, play a game online doesn't mean to play it in the publisher's servers. If they put online servers is because they increase their profit doing so.
It's ok, but I buy a game to be able to play it as long as I want and if I have to throw it away after a couple of years because the publisher closed their servers, then I'm not going ot buy it.

These Things Never Make Sense To Me.

[gaderael]

To me it seems like they are trying to double dip. If I buy a game, go online and play it for a few months, and then sell it to omeone else and they go onnlie to play, there is no difference in the server cost beyond adding that [lyers tats to the game. I'm simply giving up my reserved slot to someone else.

It's like the Other OS fiasco again. Whe they came out with the PSN, it was free. You have the game, you go online, no fees, you just enjoy it. Now they're saying "Oh actually, now you have to make sure it's a new gamely purchased game or you're out of luck." If they were so worried about the cost of maintaining servers and the like then they should have factored tht in to the cost of the console or the should have made the service into something like Xbox Live. As for the markeing speak, how is decreasing the number of players available forplay enhaning the experience?

Re:These Things Never Make Sense To Me.

[Anonymous Coward]

ah but on PAPER for them this looks like they can raise their revenue predictions, which is what allows them more "commitment" - as if money was the issue on their commitment or quality.

Re:These Things Never Make Sense To Me.

[QuantumRiff]

This is really, really going to suck for GameFly

Re:These Things Never Make Sense To Me.

[Syberz]

As for the markeing speak, how is decreasing the number of players available forplay enhaning the experience?

As you said, they're not even decreasing the number of players (except if you count the ones that don't bother buying their products in the first place because of this), the 2nd hand market only maintains the number of players that they had before since the one selling is leaving and the one buying is coming in.

Re:These Things Never Make Sense To Me.

[cbackas]

At least the way they operate, people electing to Buy/Keep the game from GameFly will know they're getting the code as if they'd bought new - you get the unmolested packaging when you do that including any and every ad, code, or manual that was packed in with the game. They boxes are even in better condition than when you buy new from GameStop; devoid of impossible-to-remove stickers and crud.

It will diminish the actual RENTAL part of the service for afflicted games though, no doubt.

Re:These Things Never Make Sense To Me.

[xero314]

or the should have made the service into something like Xbox Live.

For those of use that only play a very few online games, and prefer single player or offline multiplayer, I am very glad that Sony didn't follow that pattern. Why would I want to pay $50 a year for a service I rarely use, when it is included with the games I purchase, or if I purchased second hand, I could purchase a lifetime pass for that game (presumably for less than $50, but that remains to be seen).

As for the markeing speak, how is decreasing the number of players available forplay enhaning the experience?

The idea, and we don't know yet how it will work out, is that the number of players will not decrease, or not decrease significantly, but that all players will be paying to help support the service. Right now only the original purchaser is supplying anything toward the current cost of the service.

They can do whatever they want

[lul_wat]

I'm just going to dust off this ball and go play outside.

Re:They can do whatever they want

[Archangel Michael]

We noticed that your ball was acquired through secondary resale or as a souvenir from a Major League Franchise , and as such violates the EULA enclosed with the ball's original packaging. Please remit this ball to its original owner. Thanks the BPAA (Ball Playing Association of America) representing the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, NLL, PVA, PKBA ...

Tax on Resale

[StoneyMahoney]

It is possible to argue that resold games do have a longer online lifespan than ones held by a single owner. It's also possible to argue that resold games actually have a considerably shorter first-owner online lifespan and that the quick resale comes from the fact the original owner disliked it. There is some discrepancy here because if you are the original owner of a resold game then you still own the original "license" to play it online but you don't actually have the game anymore so it's value to you is zero. This highlights a difference between online console gaming, MMO gaming and traditional PC online multiplayer gaming.

- Consoles connect to 1st party servers run by the publisher, so the publisher is paying for the bandwidth and server farm to support this online game. Seeing as how bandwidth is cheap and servers can be repurposed for other titles or even run concurrently, I don't see any reason why the bandwidth cost couldn't be absorbed in the original sale price.

- MMO's also use 1st party servers but players can often rack up an awful lot more hours on them and expect continual releases of new content, hence the need for in-game stores, expansion packs, monthly fees, whatever. They also have rather more specialised servers that have less scope for reuse afterwards and tend to require the entire effort of a major publisher, usually meaning there's no side-projects that can slide in alongside it.

- PC multiplayer games used to (and to a wide extent still do) depend on user-hosted servers that cost the original publisher nothing but add huge value to their titles. They still need to run some servers themselves, usually login and stats servers and the like, but as the majority of the cost is being eaten up by the game's users anyway, running an online multiplayer game like this doesn't really cost anything noteworthy.

None of these is really better than any of the others, they all have their upsides and downsides and I'm just looking at the economics here. The problem I would like to highlight is that the price of console gaming with 1st party servers appears to be rising at a much faster rate than the either of the others and that charges for subsequent users of a single copy of a game means that either someone got their pricing really badly wrong or someone is making a cynical move to take a cut from preowned game sales. I wouldn't want to bet either way myself but giving the original owner the non-transferrable right to play a game online is actually a neat way of decreasing the value of a preowned game to the next person and doesn't add any value what-so-ever to the original owner.

Re:Tax on Resale

[Machtyn]

The problem with "longer online lifespan" is that there are some companies who do not want their games to have a long shelf life. They would rather you go out and buy MAJOR SPORTS FRANCHISE 20XX, etc. Now, I'm not limiting this to sports franchises, Need For Speed Underground 2 is a game I thoroughly enjoyed. But once I finished it, the replay value was in configuring new cars to go up against the same AI opponents (which either cheat or are too easy to beat) - not terribly exciting. Yes, there was an online component to the game, but finding players is difficult. Getting fresh content meant purchasing Need For Speed Shift (or whatever the next game was) - there was no online modding community to give us more tracks or to expand on the existing terrain.

With the current business models as they are, most companies see games like Half-Life a detriment, because mods like Counter-Strike, which are released for free do not have recurring payments (except for generating more sales, but those are one time purchases.) Of course, Valve has figured out people like hats for Team Fortress 2 and are able to keep a steady supply of income from microtransactions.

/end rambling... sorry.

Re:Tax on Resale

[hedwards]

You can argue anything, it doesn't mean that it's either factually correct or relevant to the topic of discussion.

In this case this is just another instance of Sony infringing upon typical ownership rights. Sort of a somewhat less evil version of their CD rootkit or when they vandalized all those PS3s in response to an alleged crack.

Thinking any more deeply on it is a waste of energy as any country with a consumer protection regulatory system is going to say no to this. It's mostly because folks in the US are more interested in being completely dependent upon corporations over which they have no control that politicians that they can vote out of office that we get this sort of crap here.

steam

[SkunkPussy]

so i'll be sticking with steam then - the games are much cheaper on there anyway

Re:steam

[PRMan]

Sounds good. But I tried to play Portal 2 on my PC the other night and I couldn't because the servers were down.

Re:steam

[robmv]

Disc based games can be cheaper too if you wait and do not buy it on day one, I buy many games at 30$ or less frequently. By the way, can I buy some of your Steam games you do not play anymore?

People here frequently bash Sony, but be consistent, this blocking of online for second hand users is not good, keep in mind that they are not the only one doing it. In Steam I can not even play the same game with another user on the same machine without that person messing with my scores/saved game

Re:steam

[The Moof]

So to fight back against companies who restrict your ability to sell your games used by removing multiplayer, you're going to go exclusively with a service that doesn't let your sell your games at all... that'll show 'em!

Re:steam

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, let us know when you find used games on Steam, because that's totally comparable to this.

Re:steam

[OffaMyLawn]

With Steam, though, you knew what you were getting into when you purchased the game from their service. Sony are just being assholes.

Re:steam

[VGPowerlord]

Steam is currently participating in a DDoS attack on itself known as the "Steam Summer Sale."

It's likely to end on the 11th, and things will return to normal.

Re:steam

[Machtyn]

Yea! Darn Steam Sales!!!! I've already spent too much on that thing - granted I have a lot of games to show for it, too.

Re:steam

[Anonymous Coward]

The method may not stink as much, but you can't sell your steam games either.

Re:steam

[TehNoobTrumpet]

People DO sell Steam accounts. Don't know whether this is legal under the EULA, but it is being done.

Re:steam

[demonbug]

so i'll be sticking with steam then - the games are much cheaper on there anyway

Lol. So your answer to a company introducing a system aimed at preventing resale of games is to only buy games from a system that has never allowed you to re-sell games? I don't get it.

Not to say I hate Steam or anything (I'm not a big fan, but I did buy the Orange Box on it a few years back), I just find it sort of funny that a lot of people are saying similar things - screw Sony, I'm going to go back to PC... where one-time-use codes or similar systems have been in use for years and where there has never really been a used game market.

Re:steam

[demonbug]

People DO sell Steam accounts.

Don't know whether this is legal under the EULA, but it is being done.

You could just as easily set up a unique account for each Sony game and sell that along with the game.

Re:steam

[Anonymous Coward]

How is Steam any different? Last I checked I can't sell my Steam games when I'm done with them.

Re:steam

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh good you beat me to it.

Look the big companies are after every dime they can hoover up. I get that you find that repugnant. But then to go buy from a system that has from day one been like that... My brain sploded...

They are shooting themselves in the foot. If they put companies like Gamestop out of business they end up only in big box stores. Those guys are *ruthless* in what they will keep on the shelves.

Also want a good selection of PC games? Go to walmart and target. They have a fairly decent selection, surprisingly. Where the so called 'game places' have completely turned their backs on the PC games.

translation from marketing

[juenger1701]

We screwed the pooch with the original PSN and the PS3 now Microsoft and Nintendo are severely whipping our asses and we can't afford to build out a LIVE competitor for the same fee Microsoft charges so now we will continue with the delusion that people want to buy every game we make at full price forever. (i'm looking at you Games on Demand)

Re:translation from marketing

[Machtyn]

I'll be surprised if the PlayStation franchise lasts for 2 more years under current conditions. The recent hacking that showed how lax they were with security and the continual trying to mess with the customer is going to wear them down.

How???

[Anonymous Coward]

How does Sony and others keep getting away with this? This violates consumer rights and laws in may countries.

play the waiting game

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who don't want to pay full price will just wait it out for Sony to naturally drop the price, which will be months later. Then by the time they get the game no one will be online so the value of online playing will drop encouraging those same people to say screw it I'll just buy it used then.

Why do you buy Sony products?

[Pharmboy]

Seriously, why do people buy Sony products anymore? I quit when the rootkit scandal broke, and all they have done since is prove that I made a good choice. While every corporation exists to make profit, it should be symbiotic, yet Sony has clearly demonstrated they don't care about their customers, only their profits, by their deeds and their words, many times over.

You can actually get by just fine without Sony products, many of us have for many years. We don't need Playstation (plenty of other choices), we skip buying music on their labels, we have none of their hardware, we don't buy blu-ray. It isn't that hard to go Sony-free. The only "vote" you have in the way Sony treats their customers is with your dollars. Vote for someone else.

Re:Why do you buy Sony products?

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

For me, the rootkit scandal was actually my first confirmation that I made the right choice. I quit when my Sony miditower refused to play Sony (BMG) copy-protected discs. The only way for me to play the content on the discs I legally bought was to make a copy first...

Re:Why do you buy Sony products?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear slashdotters,stop complaining so much about Sony and don't speak to things if you don't actually use them. I personally prefer the playstation over the other available systems and I also don't agree with the used games sales but when you consider the fact that their online play (for the moment) is free, this is a reasonable way to ensure they know who they are giving free stuff away to. The one thing I wish they had done is said if you have PSN+ that you can play used games online for free (you already pay for the network bonuses which really means you're paying for the network).

You can bicker all you want about going "Sony free" but there's probably a lot of hypocrisy in that statement as I'm sure you knowingly (or not) support companies that do a lot more evil than a company that gave you exactly what you wanted and then scaled it back to...umm... exactly what all the other competitors do. I'm sorry they told you.

Re:Why do you buy Sony products?

[tecnico.hitos]

Because they are one of the only 3 decent gaming consoles (2 if you only care about HD) and have quite a few good exclusives that dedicated gamers can't help but care about.

Besides, it is unreasonable to expect that the vast majority of uninformed customer will do anything about it. Even if every customer that feels bothered by this decision stop buying, it won't be more than a scratch to their deep pockets. Even then, since you don't buy from them anymore, they won't care about what you think either. Voting with dollars doesn't work against megacorps.

And then they will cry piracy.

Re:Why do you buy Sony products?

[Anonymous Coward]

Things might have changed in the last few years (especially since the PSN hacks), but I hear Sony has/had strong brand loyalty in Asia (in general, not just in games)

Don't ask me why there's loyalty. It's like how some people just won't buy anything but brand name products.

Game-wise, Sony also pretty much take up a third to a half of the floor in the annual Hong Kong game expo (for the few times I was there). I think Sony also has some system exclusive games to keep people around (games which don't make it overseas, but are popular enough in Asia to keep people around)

Re:Why do you buy Sony products?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like...
Microsoft? check
Apple? check
Oracle? check

Re:Why do you buy Sony products?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't we vote with regulation? We don't allow companies to dump massive amounts of toxic wastes into rivers, why do we allow them to dump toxic code into their products? Plus you don't always have a vote. Take Verizon for example. They screw their customers over regularly (charges for going over your allotted minutes, axing unlimited internet to get the same scam going for internet access, high text charges, random monthly fees (like the bogus "tax-recovery" fee they still charge). But when the competition is doing the same thing, and the competition lacks the one essential feature of a carrier (reception), you are stuck. In Sony's case there is robust competition for gaming, (though they have a tight grip on blu-ray). But even with gaming, what do we do when Nintendo (which has already shown its true colors with some of their licensing craziness for the ds) and Microsoft inevitably join Sony in making the same kinds of decisions? Better yet, do we trust Microsoft and Nintendo not to? At that point "voting with our dollars" becomes a fantasy, a weak "the market will fix it" dream that will never come true.

Re:Why do you buy Sony products?

[ohnocitizen]

Why can't we vote with regulation? We don't allow companies to dump massive amounts of toxic wastes into rivers, why do we allow them to dump toxic code into their products? Plus you don't always have a vote. Take Verizon for example. They screw their customers over regularly (charges for going over your allotted minutes, axing unlimited internet to get the same scam going for internet access, high text charges, random monthly fees (like the bogus "tax-recovery" fee they still charge). But when the competition is doing the same thing, and the competition lacks the one essential feature of a carrier (reception), you are stuck. In Sony's case there is robust competition for gaming, (though they have a tight grip on blu-ray). But even with gaming, what do we do when Nintendo (which has already shown its true colors with some of their licensing craziness for the ds) and Microsoft inevitably join Sony in making the same kinds of decisions? Better yet, do we trust Microsoft and Nintendo not to? At that point "voting with our dollars" becomes a fantasy, a weak "the market will fix it" dream that will never come true.

(Accidentally posted this whilst not logged in).

Re:Why do you buy Sony products?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Because they have good games.
I really wish you elitist assholes would shove your foot in your mouth and leave it there so we don't have to hear you.

Why do fill up that car of yours? Oil companies have continued to show they don't care about customers. Many people get buy just fine without cars.
Why do you use the internet? ISPs as a whole have shown they don't care about customers. Many people get by just fine without internet.

Get the point yet? Look around you, everything you own and use is probably made by a company that has disregard for customers, it's how most companies operate.
So unless you have a company that offers content and equipment like Sony does, sans the disregard for customers, would you kindly keep quiet?

Re:Why do you buy Sony products?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do I buy HD movies on disc to watch without Blu-Ray?

Re:Why do you buy Sony products?

[Anonymous Coward]

True, I the last sony product I purchased was a spindel of sony dvds a few years back, it was a school emergency so I was forced to. You can go cold turkey and don't feel the pain. Walkman is dead, their movies suck ass(case in point: the zookeeper), and I don't even listen to stupid pop sheep music they produce.

Re:Why do you buy Sony products?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just Sony, THQ with Homefront and some other game publishers.

Re:Why do you buy Sony products?

[xero314]

Why can't we vote with regulation? We don't allow companies to dump massive amounts of toxic wastes into rivers, why do we allow them to dump toxic code into their products?

There is a big difference between environment destruction or impacts on human and animal well being, and having to pay for an online service. In a free market, which we claim to have in most western countries, you can not regulate price.

Plus you don't always have a vote...At that point "voting with our dollars" becomes a fantasy, a weak "the market will fix it" dream that will never come true.

You always have a vote, always. If everyone in a particular industry is operating in a way you disagree with, then you do not participate in the industry. Boycott is one of the most powerful tools consumers have. Too bad most people are too weak to actually exercise that power.

You can also create a competitor. If your product or service is what people actually want then you will succeed. But what you might find out, is that what you think people want, is not what they actually want.

Re:Why do you buy Sony products?

[JustAnotherIdiot]

I'll take this comment seriously when you stop giving money to any and all companies who are this way.
That internet your paying for? Odds are that company has done more wrong than sony ever will.

Re:Why do you buy Sony products?

[Swanktastic]

Because you and I both know it would become the Anti-Terrorism and Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2012 whereby people who resell electronic media would be considered terrorists.

Re:Why do you buy Sony products?

[hedwards]

Strictly speaking Sony is more or less a holding company for the various divisions. Which means that if you bought something games related it doesn't have the same idiots running it that run the music division or the computer division.

Re:Why do you buy Sony products?

[Trixter]

we don't buy blu-ray

Then you're ignorant, because Sony != Blu-ray. Sony is only one of many corporations that make up the AACS LA.

Blu-ray is a 4x improvement over DVD to the point and (to me) a gigantic quality improvement; why on earth would you protest Sony by not buying Blu-rays? You can buy Blu-ray players from other companies, you know. 2 years ago, Samsung was making $100 players with Netflix streaming built into them. No Sony involved.

Re:Why do you buy Sony products?

[ohnocitizen]

Consider Verizon or Comcast. "Just don't participate in the industry?". So do without a cell phone or internet access? Yeah one consumer doing that is sure to make them quake. It discounts utterly people who depend upon services that ought to be classified as essential (like electricity).

Further, creating a competitor - outside the dreamland of web applications - takes serious resources. There are a number of great alternatives trying to do that (check out http://www.mysimplemobile.com/), but look at their coverage map vs Verizon. Your comment simply does not take into account the pragmatic concerns of corporations with too much power.

Also of note, in a mixed market (which is what we have, no one has a completely free market), you can regulate price. You can prevent collusion (which is what the telecoms are doing), price gouging, and a range of predatory practices.

Re:Why do you buy Sony products?

[Pharmboy]

Most of my games are on PC, not console. I don't expect the majority of customers to do anything about it, but I would expect a lot of /.ers to feel the same way I do, and they do. And I'm not worried about piracy claims on a platform I don't own.

Sony isn't the only company I won't buy from. I haven't owned an Apple product in over 10 years either. I don't have much of a choice with MS because of my work, but use Linux on every system I can, including our entire server infrastructure. (btw, thanks MS for making Win7 bork on Samba without a patch...asshats).

I don't *expect* anyone else to follow suit, but if people keep bitching about Sony...well, take the hint. They haven't done anything that has affected me personally in many, many years.....because I won't use their products, even if they were given to me.

Re:Why do you buy Sony products?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Because Microsoft make the other options for playing cutting-edge-visuals games; XBox 360 and Windows. Sony's products also last.

Re:Why do you buy Sony products?

[Shnyzx]

I love this flawed argument. It would be one thing if we were talking about Sony washing machines or appliances and I could just boycott them and buy a competitors, but we are talking about the PS3 here. While there is some degree of competition in that market it is not to the degree of most markets. You will not get the same experience on a XBox (and by your logic we should boycott them as well...) and definitely not on a Wii. Your only choice is to keep playing, or live without. Some people can do the latter, whereas I choose to just not buy things and wait till games are GOTY or I swap games.

Re:Why do you buy Sony products?

[Anonymous Coward]

Filthy slash cunts getting their panties in a bunch again...
There was a time when this shit pot site was worth something..
Now this is shitty fester of 360 fancunts crying...
I hope this site is obliviated from the internet memories... shitty site

Re:Why do you buy Sony products?

[Pharmboy]

They make games that play on computers now.

Soon, RIP Sony.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how many feet they have left to shoot themselves on.

Here is a proper translation

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty fluent in marketing speak.

"This is an important initiative as it allows us to fuck you in the ass."

What could possibly go wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

.. sounds like problems waiting to happen with that 1 time only pass thingy

Sony Still Hasn't Learned I Guess

[Zerohm]

Dear Sony,

On paper it might appear as though you are incentivising new game buyers. To me, however, you are calling buyers of used games (aka gamers) second class gamers that don't deserve the benefit of your full content. I'm sorry you lost $3.2 Billion this year, I know that's a LOT of money, but stop trying to milk every penny out of your fans and customers. That's why you've slowly been losing them for the past 10 years.

Do you know what people (and even many pirates) are willing to pay for? Convenience. Make your games easy to buy and play and ,yes, reinstall on a new machine and people just might return for more games.

Z

Re:Sony Still Hasn't Learned I Guess

[HAKdragon]

Could you also address you're letter to EA, Warner Bros. Interactive, and all of the other companies that have been implementing an "online pass" system in their games, since It's not just Sony. As a side topic, does anybody have list of games that require online pass for multiplayer?

Re:Sony Still Hasn't Learned I Guess

[BigSes]

The new Mortal Kombat does this, at least on PS3 (I don't know about 360), and it came out way back on April 19th. You have to use the passcode that comes with the game in order to access any online features such as multiplayer, or buy any online content. I believe it is $20 to get a new code from the Playstation Store if you buy a used copy. You're right, its not just Sony, its a convenient way to slant the issue spanning multiple publishers in order to demonize Sony a bit more.

That marketing speak is actually a lie

[erroneus]

To accelerate means to make something faster. This is billed as something to accelerate something for the first-party somehow. Who is the first-party? While it does inhibit other parties, it does not accelerate anything and would seem to inhibit even first parties.

We get it. Game companies seek to block after market activities such as rental and used sales. The success of the new PSPgo proves that their initiave is effective... right? Oh wait, isn't the PSPgo mostly rejected by the masses? I know I haven't seen many PSPgo devices outside of at stores... in fact, I still see more PSPs in public than I have ever seen PSPgos. So has Sony been ignoring the fact that the public generally rejects their "improvements"? Seems so.

In this case, I hope Sony and Sony's customers get what they deserve. At some point, Sony customers have been victims, but with all the crap about Sony these days, anyone who keeps with Sony is no longer a victim, but a willing participant.

Re:That marketing speak is actually a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony may be the first party in this case. It would make sense that they would consider themselves first before their serfs^H^H^H^H^Hcustomers anyway.

Re:That marketing speak is actually a lie

[nedlohs]

The first party is Sony, since that's who makes a "first party game" that uses PSN.

Note, that they aren't god. Their predictions of the outcome of doing something can be wrong without that meaning they lied when making the claims.

Re:That marketing speak is actually a lie

[robmv]

The failure of the PSP Go was not related with any blocking of after market activities, people are not rejecting that (I do, I prefer disc based games over online download), many people here love Steam, the masters of blocking second hand sale, even multiuser gaming on the same PC, and many others love to buy games from the Apple App Store and Android Market. The Go died because Sony did not had the infrastructure and rules to game makers to make games available on disk and as online download. many recent PSP games are not available yet on the PSN store. For the PSP Vita that are telling that every game will be available for download too, They are changing the rules so developers now need to test and deploy online too.

Re:That marketing speak is actually a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

First party, in this case, would be Sony itsself. So 'first party game portfolio' means 'games made by Sony, or by companies Sony owns.'

So... "accelerate our commitment to enhancing premium online services across our first party game portfolio." means... "To more rapidly bring into use the technologies needed to enhance subscription-based online gaming, but only for games we release ourselves." The 'enhance' part I think is from the business point of view, not the user, so 'enhance' would mean 'make more profitable.'

Re:That marketing speak is actually a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, acceleration means a change in velocity--either positive or negative. Maybe they just forgot to add the correct modifier?

Re:That marketing speak is actually a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't have to be one dimensional +/-

They COULD be merely changing direction. As in rotating after they stick it up their customers' ass.

Re:That marketing speak is actually a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, I hope Sony and Sony's customers get what they deserve. At some point, Sony customers have been victims, but with all the crap about Sony these days, anyone who keeps with Sony is no longer a victim, but a willing participant.

You really haven't thought that position through.

WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony is already hurting in sales and they decide to follow EA in implementing an online pass. That went over very well for EA. The price of those games dropped like a stone knowing that people couldn't resell them. I wouldn't even buy them simply because you can't resell them. Their only saving grace will be MK9 and Battlefield. If they are worried about not making money for online services, they could charge a fee for premium and not for standard...sound like Gold and Silver XBL accounts to me. People complain about the price of those but if they charged $10 a month for premium services (prices of an online pass each money) they would make tons of money. $10 is nothing for most people considering Xbox crazy online costs. I don't understand why companies have it out for used games. Somebody had to buy the first copy in order to resell it. I know they don't make money on the resale but perhaps that is what they should be attacking. If I were a used game store such as GameStop or someone who rents like GameFly or Netflix. I would join forces and sue EA and Sony for trying to put them out of business. I can see it coming and I hope the used game stores win.

I'm curious...

[Syberz]

I've translated the marketing speak into layman's terms, but I don't understand something:

How does preventing second-hand purchase people from using online components allow SONY to more quickly make the online experience/contents better for the people who initially bought the game?

It's not like the tech people maintaining and unclogging the tubes actually work on creating the contents...

Re:I'm curious...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can only assume that they feel that they only want people that paid them for the game to enjoy the 'free' network the provide. This way, they can feel confident that all people on their servers helped pay for those servers and they will deserve any enhancements provided to those servers and services. Those freeloaders are sucking up the resources that only paying consumers deserve.

Honestly, I find it disingenuous as we all know that they will take their money and not provide or enhance one damn 'premium' service.

If they want money for their T1 lines and servers they should have you pay for the online experience just like XBOX does.

Re:I'm curious...

[Syberz]

I understand what you're saying, but even that doesn't explain it because the 2nd hand dude most likely would not have paid the full price. So they're trading 1 player (full price guy) for another player (2nd hand guy). This makes no change to the total number of players on their servers.

To only thing that might explain this, is that the 2nd hand market prolongs the longevity of the game, which means that SONY needs to maintain the servers longer and can't use the hardware for another title's online features.

Translation

[Registered Coward v2]

Ha, I new my MBA would come in handy. This has two main points:

"This is an important initiative ...

Point 1:

"We think this will make more money for our shareholders and executive's bonuses ..."

"...as it allows us to accelerate our commitment to enhancing premium online services across our first party game portfolio."

Point 2:

"...We can also make the resale market less lucrative since you won't get a full game experience so a used game is worth less. We can then sell you a pass to unlock those features, which gets us back to Point 1."

Left unsaid was:

"If we can drive some of the used game dealers out of business that's just a bit of lagniappe."

Sony is hostile.

[andydread]

At this point people who haven't learned and are still purchasing Sony products and are still giving Sony their heard earned dollars truly deserve the shafting that Sony delivers. Sony is a company that has become downright hostile to consumer rights and to their customers. Their arrogance even in the face of the PSN being down and all the hacks is simply breathtaking.

Sony is like a grape

[xednieht]

Sony is like a grape, they need to get stomped until they wine. Hackers have at them, keep beating on this nuisance.

Thank steam for leading the way

[Anonymous Coward]

After they proved that the market was stupid enough to pay for a game with no hope in reselling it (as your key is locked to your account), every other game manufacturer will eventually have ridden this pony, and your wallet straight to the bank.
 
Did I mention I really, really, really don't like steam? I'd love to be able to sell my copy of duke nukem forever for 5 dollars... but I can't.

It's almost funny...

[AngryDeuce]

And they wonder why people pirate games...who the hell is going to pay money for something they don't even own? Ridiculous...

Give the game away

[Anonymous Coward]

and charge for the online play. This would be fair.

As long as Razor1911 has anything to say about it

[unity100]

people will trade and use used games fully unlocked.

Welcome back Circuit City DIVX technology!

[countertrolling]

That was a big seller...

Really, all Sony has to do is to make the entire console turn into dust after one play. Considering the quality of consumer hardware these days, it shouldn't be too difficult for them. Much of it barely works when new.

Sorry guys

[Anonymous Coward]

I sold off my PSP and PS3 systems this year. I have grown tired of the company's antics. I will not be purchasing any new gaming products from a company that disrespects its customers. They failed to understand economics of the used game market entirely.

Make things less valuble

[EdgeyEdgey]

This lowers the resale value, making consumers less likely to buy that game. If it is employed on all future PS3 games then this will make the console less attractive. Sony obviously think that they generate more money by encouraging 2nd hand buyers to buy first hand than they get by charging a premium to early adopters.

Capitalism requires property

[nickmalthus]

There is certain trend in the media industry to move away from products to per licensed use. This is an absolute assult on capitalist principals which generates wealth through property. Instead of selling products that may gain value over time (I by old pc games as collector items) and allowing new markets to grow (gamestop resell,emulators) these unscrupulous corporations want to charge each individual use of a product over your entire lifetime! It is hypocritical for these corporations to lobby for intelectual property protection when they don't even want to generate property.

Re:Capitalism requires property

[ultranova]

There is certain trend in the media industry to move away from products to per licensed use. This is an absolute assult on capitalist principals which generates wealth through property.

I'm sorry to inform you, but there is no such thing as a self-consistent "capitalist principal", unless you count "make money any way you can" as a principle.

To elaborate a bit: the idea of capitalism is that people following their own best interests end up working for the benefit of all (such as a farm hand helping feed lots of people because he wants wages). Some people are more succesful in following their best interests than others, and accumulate more wealth. Since wealth is simply another form of power, having wealth makes it easier to acquire more, so you end up with a few rich people and lots of not-so-rich. And it's in the best interests of those rich people - or corporations - to use their wealth to buy laws that prevent competition.

Capitalist principles are self-refuting, because a succesful capitalist will either use his capital to make himself a dictator, thus abolishing them, or give up the pursuit of more power, thus giving them up.

Instead of selling products that may gain value over time (I by old pc games as collector items) and allowing new markets to grow (gamestop resell,emulators) these unscrupulous corporations want to charge each individual use of a product over your entire lifetime! It is hypocritical for these corporations to lobby for intelectual property protection when they don't even want to generate property.

No, it isn't hypocritical. These companies exist for one purpose, and one purpose only: to make money for their owners. If that means perverting laws and the very concept of property, then so be it.

You are thinking of a system where people compete, but also play fair. That's not capitalism.

Don't see a problem with it if...

[ilsaloving]

They also drop the price to 1/3 (or less) of what they used to be charging. I'll be damned if I'm going to spend $60+ on a game only to be stuck with it when I don't want it any more.

My, Oh My!

[BlueStrat]

Sony really IS a glutton for punishment, isn't it?

After the long and infamous string of bad behaviors, poor choices, generally crappy and negative actions towards it's customers, along with the numerous PR foot-gun bullseyes that Sony has inflicted upon itself over the last 10 years or so, it simply amazes me that a supposedly sophisticated, modern, tech/media multinational giant with whole divisions of people supposedly advising them on PR & policy issues like Sony, could be so seemingly-determined to reach out to every last human being on Earth...and make them despise Sony.

The saddest part is that Sony is far from alone, just the one presently in the spotlight.

Strat

Not the first thing sony failed at..

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they should focus their efforts on creating better games people aren't willing to trade/resell? Seems like a backwards approach to increasing sales.

Good luck finding a pickup group outside

[tepples]

Good luck finding a pickup group outside. Media hysteria about sexual abuse of children by strangers has created paranoia in parents' minds.

Sony screw the consumer? That's unpossible!

[elrous0]

I mean, you expect this kind of behavior out of others...but Sony has such a long history of consumer-friendly practices.

Wow, maintaining that level of sarcasm made even me dizzy.

Wii, 360, PS3, and Wintendo make four

[tepples]

Because they are one of the only 3 decent gaming consoles (2 if you only care about HD)

There are three consoles and one device that is not a console but can be used like one: Wii, Xbox 360, PLAYSTATION 3, and Wintendo (a compact gaming PC running Windows Home Premium). Drop Sony and drop SDTV and you still have two different Microsoft choices.

And then they will cry piracy.

If people don't buy a Sony console, how can Sony claim mass copyright infringement of games that only run on a Sony console?

Re:Wii, 360, PS3, and Wintendo make four

[tecnico.hitos]

If people don't buy a Sony console, how can Sony claim mass copyright infringement of games that only run on a Sony console?

Copyright infringement claims are more often related to what they believe they should be earning rather than actual customer behavior and statistics.

MPAA news

[tepples]

Why can't we vote with regulation?

Because of MPAA control over TV news. The major TV news outlets in the United States are all owned by movie studios, and candidates for the U.S. Congress won't take positions against major movie studios during an election campaign for fear of TV news branding such candidates as irrelevant.

random monthly fees (like the bogus "tax-recovery" fee they still charge)

If regulators were to impose unfunded mandates on you, how would you recover the cost of implementing these mandates?

Oh well...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was considering buying a PS3 or a 360 just to play Duke Nukem Forever and GTA4. I have a PC that is more than capable of playing these games, but I don't want to support the developers and I was planning to buy the games used and a console just to avoid paying them. The reason is, I do not agree with schemes that allow someone to take away what I have purchased after the sale by requiring online activation. Guess I'll just wait until these systems are old and very cheap before playing those games.

steam is worse

[Anonymous Coward]

At least I can sell my playstation games and the other person can play them. You can't do that on steam.

simple solution

[fmoliveira]

create a different user for each game you buy, give the user with the game when you sell

Not Particularly New

[Anonymous Coward]

Mortal Kombat 9 on PS3 had the Kombat Pass that required you enter a key that it came with to play online, if you bought it used you could get a new Kombat Pass on PSN for $4.99 or something.

Not what it sounds like

[supersloshy]

I hate DRM as much as the next guy, I love the first-sale doctrine, and I'm saying this as a free culture junkie: this is perfectly fine.

All this does is limit ONLINE access for CERTAIN games (so mainly offline games won't be affected) to the original purchaser. If you buy used, you have to buy a license to play online. This is how it has been done for YEARS on PCs and nobody over there seems to have a problem with it. Heck, the games themselves are relatively DRM-free (just back up the ISO and you're good), and they can't provide online gaming for free you know. Every little cent helps the service be better than otherwise and I, as a gamer, appreciate that.

This increases the incentive to purchase new, while still allowing you to purchase used if you always have been. This is NOT limiting the ability of the games to be sold used; you can still buy them used and they will work just fine. You will just have to support the network developers with a contribution if you do; isn't that fair? You don't have the right to play online in any game you want for free. You do have the rights to resell and backup games though, and that isn't being tampered with whatsoever.

Re:Not what it sounds like

[gum2me]

I dunno about you, but most of the single-player games I buy for the online multiplayer component. I don't have a PS3, but I have an XBox 360. For the Modern Combat series I don't think I have complete a single single-player mission. All my game time has been online multiplayer. Someone like me would be very affected by this change if Microsoft adopted it.

Re:Not what it sounds like

[supersloshy]

The main difference between PSN and Xbox Live is that one is free and the other isn't. With PSN, new game sales help fund the PSN network, while Xbox users fund their network with subscriptions. If people only buy used games, they are in fact hurting the network they use. With these PSN Passes, you need to make a contribution before you can play a used game online and that feels fair to me. With Xbox Live, it wouldn't be fair at all though.

Par for the course in Europe

[Mathinker]

> I'm truly sympathetic that artists don't see checks each time their paintings change hands.

Actually, that is an almost universal practice in Europe, and has been adopted in California.

What happens in actuality, is that the surcharge on the sale price, which is supposed to go to the artist, usually is collected by a collection agency which takes a big cut out of it... assuming they even know how to contact the artist. Almost as bad as ASCAP....

Higher Standards

[Zlyph]

At first this made my eyebrow twitch, but honestly as long as it only applies to the games online I really don’t see an issue with needing a key to associate it with your account. (Unless they pull that UBISOFT nonsense where you can’t play your single player game without online activation) I think the bigger issue here is how much they charge for their awful games. Slapping you in the face and chaining it down after that initial transaction seems pretty minor in comparison. In short - Make better games, people wont trade them back in later.

SONY MACHT FREI

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is an important initiative as it allows us to accelerate our commitment to enhancing premium online services across our first party game portfolio."

See, it's all about helping us out. It's not a theft of rights, it's a benefit!

(And it's ironic that the captcha word is 'shared'.)

you forget the important bit...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me do the honors: "Bend over suckers."

... and bring your own nail ridden dildo,

The End of Ownership

[Anonymous Coward]

This is another nail in the coffin of ownership. DRM means you can't access your property. eBooks you "bought" can be remotely deleted. EULAs mean you just lease the product. Now the act of resale cripples the item.

I haven't been a gamer in years, but Sony is ensuring I never buy anything from them ever.

Steam is even worse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Steam is even worse than disc based games with PSN Pass, etc, since you can't sell the game at all. How is that better than a game where you can at least sell the single player portion of the game?

Re:Steam is even worse.

[darkwing_bmf]

At least with steam you'll never have to worry about lost, scratched or stolen disks.

This sucks

[peppepz]

Buying second-hand games is the only (legal) sane way of getting PS3 games with the outrageous prices that Sony forces upon us here in Europe. I'll bet that even many first-hand buyers only buy original games because they can sell them after they're done with them.

This action by Sony shows an utter disrespect towards its customers, right when some of them might have been starting to forget the PSN fiasco. It's sad for me to say this, because I think that Sony's consoles are always above their competition. Unfortunately, I can't accept to pay a higher price to support a company which will treat me like a cash cow once they've locked me in.

Oh well, perhaps I'm too grown up for games anyway.

I thought slashdot was for nerds?

[JustAnotherIdiot]

Because clearly there are very few of them here, because the term "nerd" assumes you have a few good brain cells.
Anyone who thinks Sony will "go out of business" over this, or any other issue they've had of late, lacks even one.
As much as I'd LOVE to see it, it won't happen, despite the fact that people have told me over and over since the root kit issue it would.
I see the "Sony is falling!" people on the same level that I saw the "The world is ending in May!" morons.

More secure?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? How about you keep people from hacking into your databases... THEN worry about piracy. Priorities are a bitch.

New game 60$, used game 50$

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine used game sales wouldn't have been such a big target for them had it not been for the massive profits it generated places such as Gamestop.

Parent is not a troll.

[BitterOak]

This is the worst case of moderator bias I have yet seen on Slashdot. (And I've been reading Slashdot for a long time.)

You may disagree with what the parent says, but it is a very reasonable post.

Re:Parent is not a troll.

[wagnerrp]

I initially thought the same thing, and modded the parent up in response. However, look at the length of the post, and look at the post times. A relatively new user (barely a month old) managed to type up a response in under a minute. The whole thing just looks staged.

On hating SONY

[Douglas Goodall]

This sort of behavior accelerates the development of open source hardware and software for game-play. I am sick to death of this concept that software is not sold, but rather licensed. As a software engineer, I am sick of people pirating my software and re-selling it behind my back, and keeping the money for themselves. I sold one copy of an OS to someone who later proudly told me, "All my customers LOVE your software". The advent of the "game console" and the cartridge were a natural way to cut down on piracy, and you could sell your stuff if you became bored with it. That worked for me. Then the Other OS debacle... I bought two original PS3's and felt I had gotten a good deal because when I was done paying games, I could learn about the CELL processor programming in Linux. The advent of the Internet as a delivery system for updates and the delivery medium for the shared game experience started out well enough but started downhill when you got to the point where they wanted to have a valid credit card on file for you all the time while you were a "network member". Then they played takeaway with the Other OS option, and enforced it by making the owners choose to keep their original firmware (and the Other OS option) at the cost of not having access to their network. That was really nasty, as either way you choose, you lost something in the process. I decided that having spent over a thousand dollars acquiring my two units, I would forgo the software updates and the PSN. And to this day I still have the two lovely units, although one of them quit playing blue media for some DRM related reason and I dare not get it fixed because the first thing they do is upgrade your firmware, so another form of takeaway is the loss of my movie player. Now I am so pissed at Sony, I don't even want to fool around with the CELL processor any more and the two units sit here as a testimony to my childish wasting of money I could have donated to some village so they could buy chickens and goats. The only good thing is that I only bought four movies, and four games. When I discovered Sony wanted forty dollars for a movie, that stopped any interest I had in collecting blueray movies. I hated every game I bought, and the only part of the equation that I did get excited about which was their SL-like social network, was several years late and I lost interest in that as well. Too many broken promises... The nausea factor just got too high. Now I am mad at myself for ever having transferred my respect for their products into some kind of feeling that I liked the company, because that was misplaced. Now I just plain hate sony, and I hate Microsoft, and I dislike HP. I guess I have just become a stodgy old guy.

Fuck Sony

[Stone2065]

...yet another reason I have ZERO interest in purchasing a Sony product... and honestly, losing interest in having much of ANYTHING to do with consoles, other than what the industry deems antiques, like XBox, etc. Now, that being said, I MAY get interested in buying say an original PS1, or one of the huge PS2s, since Sony has no use for them, and you don't need to be online at all for you to get the "experience" you were paying for.

They were already paid once - isn't that enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that no game is really worth the $60 they are asking for it. Though I do admit I might pay $40 once or twice a year for a decent AAA title if I find a good deal online. Even then, I'm not sure my spending is adequate justification for assigning fair market value. Oh, and I usually turn around and resale the game for whatever I can get out of it on Amazon. If anything these tactics would make me not buy their game just for spite. If they are going to make their contempt for me, a customer, so obvious, I feel obliged to do the same.

Separating game and service

[petronivs]

In contrast to a deliberate attack on game buyers, it sounds more like Sony's trying to separate the game itself (which can be played offline in most cases) from the service it connects to in order to use online capabilities. The first buyer gets a free pass to use the online service (bundled into the money Sony gets off it). Any subsequent buyers have to buy online access (since Sony doesn't get money off that sale). The long-term practicality, business-wise, for Sony is questionable in my opinion, but I can't really see moral issues with it.