Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sony Bringing PSN Pass To All First-Party Games

Posted by Soulskill on from the do-not-want dept.

New submitter zeroshade writes "Sony has confirmed that going forward, all first-party games will use the PSN Pass to force used game buyers to pay an extra $10 just for the right to play the multiplayer component of used games they buy for the PS3."

16 of 271 comments (clear)

  1. Go away customers! by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whats with you buying or product? Stop doing that!

    1. Re:Go away customers! by skapaft · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The guy who buys the used game might not be a direct customer, but the original customer who bought it new might be interested in whether there is a good second hand market to sell it on to once he's done with it, and how much money he can get back by doing so.

    2. Re:Go away customers! by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 2

      I was thinking more in the sense that this would further alienate their customer base as a whole

    3. Re:Go away customers! by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 2

      If auto dealers did something like this they'd lose customers since people would lose resale value and lose confidence in the maker.

      It's like saying that when you buy a used Ford, you don't get the manufacturers 3 year / 30,000 mile warranty.

      At the moment, game servers are an open-ended cost - you have no idea how long your game is going to be popular for. Some (pay once) PC games continue for years past their initial release, and the publisher has to balance a potential loss of goodwill with the costs of running servers.

      It doesn't seem unreasonable ; but really, I'd prefer it if the base game cost $10 less and *everyone* had to shell out the same to play the online game. But that isn't going to happen, because then you'd have the usual "hey, my game doesn't work" complaints.

    4. Re:Go away customers! by Captain+Hook · · Score: 2

      There was a time when all of those multiplayer games were hosted by the gamers themselves, in some form or other.

      The only reason games companies even have the costs associated with running online servers for years after the game was sold is because they decided they wanted a slice of the dedicated server market and so took away the ability of players to host their own games.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    5. Re:Go away customers! by Kelbear · · Score: 2

      I'm ok with it.

      If I bought a game for $60 and expect to sell it to someone for $30, I anticipate a net cost of $30 over the life of my ownership.
      If I bought a game for $60 and expect to sell it to someone for $20(because their willingness to pay was $30, but since $10 has to go to Sony, the remaining amount is $20), I expect a net cost of $40 over the life of my ownership.

      So the game price increased from $30 to $40. I can weigh whether or not the game itself is worth $40 and decide whether or not I think it's worth it. If I don't want to pay $40 I can still wait longer until the net cost drops to $30 anyway. I know about the PSN pass, so I just tack it into the overall evaluation of the purchase.

      At least this way at least a little of the used game sales flows back to the developer for each new player.

    6. Re:Go away customers! by muffen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I guess they figured that their standing with their customer-base is so low it simply cannot get any worse, might as well make some more money off the id... sorry, consumers, who are still using sony products.

      Second hand games may not bring any income to Sony but the person selling the game then using the money to buy a new game does bring in new money to the company, so I really cannot follow their thinking here.
      ... but then again, I would never have closed down Lik-Sang, installed rootkits on CDs, ignored all security best-practices in everything I did and then proceeded by crapping all over the people who still payed for my products, I guess me and sony have different ways of looking at things.

      I hate sony, there are other companies I dislike and would be reluctant to buy products from, but I hate sony. I do not buy anything that has the sony name on it, and this includes sonyericsson phones. I realize companies are in the business of making money, but most have realized that crapping on customers isn't the best way.

      ... and, if any of you think Sony is better at running a business then I am, you should consider the fact that I have made 4.7billion USD more then Sony PS Division between 2007 - 2010. http://www.vg247.com/2009/10/30/sony-ps-division-has-lost-4-7-billion-since-launching-ps3/

  2. Thanks Sony by Vskye · · Score: 2

    It's just confirms that I won't be purchasing anything from you, ever. Good job killing your potential customers.

    --
    Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
  3. Re:Thank you, hacker retards. by Jiro · · Score: 2

    Sony doesn't consider a buyer of used games to be a legitimate customer, since a used game gives Sony no income. Piracy has nothing to do with this, except that it's something else which also gives Sony no income but which sounds better to complain about in press releases.

  4. Re:Thank you, hacker retards. by Kryptonian+Jor-El · · Score: 2

    I hate this misconception. As much money as Sony makes, you'd hope they'd be paying for intelligent board members. Sure, 2nd and 3rd sales provide no direct income for Sony, but the ability to resell the games gives them higher value, allowing sony to charge $60 a pop. This is removing value from the product, and the price should drop accordingly...but it won't. Imagine is you couldn't resell your car, without the new buyer having to pay the 'Ford' fee. Normally your $20,000 car sells for $10,000 after a few years, but Ford requires $5,000 to make new keys. Well now you can only feasibly sell your car for $5,000, but Ford still sells them new for $20,000

    --
    All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
  5. To be honest, I'm not against this. by flimflammer · · Score: 2

    I don't have any modern consoles (got out of it this generation), but I don't see this as an earth shattering moment. This is good for developers who have to continuously pay to keep these online services running. Whether they intended to keep them running till a certain date or not, selling a used game to someone else gives another person access to the online services without giving the developers anything in return, which costs the developer extra money (no matter how little or much it may be). I think when you have an online component like this, the developer aught to get something in return for the use of their services considering you wouldn't have paid them a dime otherwise. I'm not sure I think it should be $10 (I would see something more in the line of $5 but whatever)

    It just makes sense from their point of view and also to some others out there who are looking at it objectively.

    I do expect to be modded down for this (I don't blame you, since this is such a controversial thing these days) but it's just how I feel about it.

  6. Carification by cyclomedia · · Score: 2

    Selling a used game to someone else does NOT give another person access. It TRANSFERS access from one person to another. The total number of players has not gone up.

    --
    If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
  7. Antisocial gaming for the win! by MacTO · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't blame them for doing this, since they are businesses and businesses are out to make a profit. I don't even blame the greed because they are providing a service and they calculate their revenues based upon a single purchaser (and not subsequent purchases of the title second hand).

    On the other hand, when it comes to gaming, I'm definitely a consumer. As a consumer, I don't want to spend more than I have to and that includes paying for access to servers for multiplayer games. So don't expect me to buy in to this scheme.

    Hell, don't expect me to pay into this scheme even if I had money to burn since I prefer single player games to social gaming and I prefer to social gaming to multiplayer games. Which basically means that I'll take a PS3 when I want to have some fun, a Nintendo when I want to enjoy a game with friend, and basically don't care about this scheme because I don't give a damn about playing 'alone' against human opponents who I will never meet.

    Of course, your opinion may differ. But I don't care. When I game it's about me (and maybe my real life friends).

  8. Re:So now I have to pay $10.. by Joce640k · · Score: 2

    Clue: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/online_gaming

    --
    No sig today...
  9. Good for buyers, bad for sellers and stores by Tobias+Lobster · · Score: 2

    Looks like the people who lose out here will be either the stores (used games no longer sell for as much) or the people who sell their used games back to the stores. And seeing as the prices paid by stores for used games are already shockingly low, I doubt they could take another $10 off the offer price.

    As a buyer, I should get the advantage of an extra $10 discount on the used game if I don't want multiplayer. And my choice is nice and easy - if the used game isn't at least $10 cheaper, I'm not buying it. Right now in the UK it's quite common for the used game to only be $3-$5 cheaper than new.

  10. Re:I'm on the fence here... by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2

    Because they are entitled to get paid? This is basic first sale doctrine they are entitled to get paid when they sell the copy. By your logic when I sell my car the new owner should have to pay GM for the privilege of using the vehicle they made?

    --
    No sir I dont like it.