Slashdot Mirror
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."
"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.
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).
I think that such a generator would break one of the Linguistodynamic Laws, it being a perpetual drivel machine.
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.
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.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
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."
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.
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.
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?
Anyone got a light for my sig?
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.
That, that really grinds my gears!
Does this apply to books, too?
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.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
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).
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?
404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
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...
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!
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
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?
As the air to a bird or the sea to a fish, so is contempt to the contemptible -W.B.
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.
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.
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.
Or cars?
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
"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.
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
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.
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.
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.
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?
"Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
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.
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.
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.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.