Sony Reportedly Requiring Online Passes for All Future Games

[purplesludge]

In legal terms, yes, buying games used it fully legal. Not going to say it isn't.

But it is also right for developers to want to make money off their games.

So, if you buy a game used, for let's say... $15 cheaper. You'll have to pay an extra $10(?) for the online pass.

Still cheaper than buying the game new from retail, but Sony stills makes a profit.

Why is it only ok for developers to make money off used products? I don't see any other industry complaining about used sales. As long as a physical disc is needed to play why should online matter. It's not like other people can play online using your copy while you're using it.

The only fair way for consumers would be a system like steam where the disc is installed and the game is now attached to your account where you can download whenever you want.

 

[Veho]

Why is it only ok for developers to make money off used products?

Because a game is an intellectual property and developers should receive royalties from every person that plays it.

 

[Nathan Drake]

And we watch as video games continue to spiral down the path where if you don't have the cash, you won't get to play. Honestly, this is a very unnecessary and incredibly lame move. Outside of "MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY," there likely isn't exactly a wonderful reason for screwing customers, some of which have no way to play but to buy used. First party titles stay spendy new for a long time and if it is say, going to run me $45 new, but $30 used + $15 for an online pass, then they aren't going to be seeing my money anyways.

As per the WoW example, that is a gigantic ass MMORPG. It thrives off the fact that there is no single player and markets enough to make the game feel worth the monthly fee to those that pay it. I don't think I've played a single console game loaded with enough online content for companies like Sony or Microsoft to ever go with a p2p model on any of their systems.

Used game sales aren't the devil that game companies make them out to be, and I wish they would quit treating them that way. Believe it or not, people that buy used don't do it thinking "har har har, now Sony won't see any of MY MONEY!!!" They do it thinking "oh, that's $20/$25/$30 cheaper than new, I can actually afford it at that price."

 

[purplesludge]

Why is it only ok for developers to make money off used products?

Because a game is an intellectual property and developers should receive royalties from every person that plays it.

Except that these are a 100% physical item.

 

[arogance1]

Why is it only ok for developers to make money off used products?

Because a game is an intellectual property and developers should receive royalties from every person that plays it.

I lend / borrow books, DVD's, CD's from my friends.
Why should I pay the developers extra for something that they've already been paid for?

Not everyone can afford a full price game and see the Used Games market as the only way to play the latest games.

Also, I started using OnLive the other week and I love it.
Although I don't own the actual media, I can still play the game, knowing that my PC isn't necessarily capable of playing the best new releases.

 

[jalaneme]

And we watch as video games continue to spiral down the path where if you don't have the cash, you won't get to play. Honestly, this is a very unnecessary and incredibly lame move. Outside of "MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY," there likely isn't exactly a wonderful reason for screwing customers, some of which have no way to play but to buy used. First party titles stay spendy new for a long time and if it is say, going to run me $45 new, but $30 used + $15 for an online pass, then they aren't going to be seeing my money anyways.

As per the WoW example, that is a gigantic ass MMORPG. It thrives off the fact that there is no single player and markets enough to make the game feel worth the monthly fee to those that pay it. I don't think I've played a single console game loaded with enough online content for companies like Sony or Microsoft to ever go with a p2p model on any of their systems.

Used game sales aren't the devil that game companies make them out to be, and I wish they would quit treating them that way. Believe it or not, people that buy used don't do it thinking "har har har, now Sony won't see any of MY MONEY!!!" They do it thinking "oh, that's $20/$25/$30 cheaper than new, I can actually afford it at that price."

wow, at least some people on here have some sense, well said.

 

[Veho]

Except that these are a 100% physical item.

The media are physical items. The games themselves are not.

 

[purplesludge]

Except that these are a 100% physical item.

The media are physical items. The games themselves are not.

The game is locked into that medium and can not be transferred and by selling it it now loses some magical property.

 

[Panzer Tacticer]

Tricky topic.

I do NOT support used games sales. Yes I know it is the bread and butter of brick and mortar.

But I am not really interested in giving a damn about brick and mortar retail. I also don't lament the death of Block Buster Video. Bye losers you wouldn't evolve and now you are gone.

But if the market demands used, and Sony tries to effectively kill off used, it could always just beat the crap out of Sony sales too. It doesn't matter what the laws says and it doesn't matter what Sony says, the only viewpoint that matters is what the market says.

Me, I welcome a world of digital only sales that require no physical medium in most cases. But I know it isn't a perfect solution. Sometimes there is a value in buying physical. Movies I don't mind, but when it comes to re installing Civilization V, I really prefer my dvd instead of downloading the damn thing all over again.

But like as with the price of oil, when it goes down in price, do the costs of things using oil go down in price? No not really.
If tomorrow you couldn't buy games used, it had to be new, and we all knew that would create a considerable spike in sales of games, would the people making the games, give us a slight reduction in price? Yeah I don't think so.

So even though I don't support used games sales in theory, I'm not about to suggest it will do any of us gamers a lot of good.

It always comes back to will the market tolerate it.
It's a numbers game.

If just Sony does this, they risk getting a pounding. If the whole industry did this, well I suppose you don't have to play games eh.

 

[Sterling]

Except that these are a 100% physical item.

The media are physical items. The games themselves are not.

Should the same be applied to used movie sales, books, and other outlets of printed media? Perhaps you'd like to pay a 2 (whatever currency you use) charge to watch a movie from a rental service? I don't think that this is right. Do you? I mean, paying for a service for an online video game is one thing, but paying 10-20 dollars for only 50-75 percent of the content on top of that rental fee, or used sale is outrageous. I might agree with the concept if the amount was lower, or to a certain level before you had to pay, but not in it's current state...

 

[Veho]

The game is locked into that medium and can not be transferred and by selling it it now loses some magical property.

That's the downside to the compromise between the theory and reality. I.e., the game has to reach the buyer somehow. I know intellectual property is a difficult concept to grasp and paying for something intangible is a weird thing to wrap one's head around since everything else you've been paying for before was material.

What you're paying for when you buy a game is a licence to use the product. The licence is not, in theory, be transferrable. The fact that you can simply give or sell the DVD to someone else is a loophole, one that stems from the aforementioned compromise, one that digital distribution and user registration is trying to plug.

 

[Snailface]

I wonder how far we are from a mandatory code registration just to play the game at all.

 

[thaddius]

The game is locked into that medium and can not be transferred and by selling it it now loses some magical property.

That's the downside to the compromise between the theory and reality. I.e., the game has to reach the buyer somehow. I know intellectual property is a difficult concept to grasp and paying for something intangible is a weird thing to wrap one's head around since everything else you've been paying for before was material.

What you're paying for when you buy a game is a licence to use the product. The licence is not, in theory, be transferrable. The fact that you can simply give or sell the DVD to someone else is a loophole, one that stems from the aforementioned compromise, one that digital distribution and user registration is trying to plug.

I can completely appreciate a company's desire to make more money and, in order to do so, have complete control of their product. But it still feel like a dick move to ultimately raise the price of games just so they can cash in on used game sales.

 

[Maedhros]

This shit is what piracy brings to the table. If people didn't pirate, shit like that wouldn't be necessary.

Deal with it.

 

[Zeroneo]

This shit is what piracy brings to the table. If people didn't pirate, shit like that wouldn't be necessary.

Deal with it.

This is more related to used games than piracy. Pirates are already used to no online so this won't affect them at all. Used game buyers and legit ones are the only ones who will be affected.

 

[Dimensional]

In legal terms, yes, buying games used it fully legal. Not going to say it isn't.

But it is also right for developers to want to make money off their games.

So, if you buy a game used, for let's say... $15 cheaper. You'll have to pay an extra $10(?) for the online pass.

Still cheaper than buying the game new from retail, but Sony stills makes a profit.

Here's how it works. Developers are paid to make the game for the console by the console manufacturer. The console manfacturer then sells it to various outlets, like Walmart and GameStop, which in turn sell it to consumers. Consumers buy it new from these places, and sometimes sell them back, like at GameStop. Then stores that sell used copies sell them as used and make a profit. Developers already got the money they earned. Console manufacturers already got all the money from the game when they sold it to Walmart, BestBuy, GameStop, etc.

They are not doing this to protect their product, as much as they claim to be doing so. They are trying to make MORE money AFTER they've gotten as much as they could from selling new. It's an example of Corporate Greed, which brought about the recession. People doing anything possible to make MORE money than they are really entitled to. They already spent money to developers to make the game. They already made a profit by selling the games to outlets. Only people who might make a loss are the outlets if enough consumers returned the game for a refund. This is just a ploy to get more money, have more power over a product that has already left their hands.

Does this help people understand? Selling games as used only gives a profit to the outlets, and these corporations are wanting a piece of that action when they are not entitled to it. They are only entitled to a profit from selling NEW copies of the games. This is their way to line their pockets even more by taking it away from everyone else.

 

[Blaze163]

I buy almost all my games pre-owned. No point paying £40 for a PS3 game when I can get it used for £15. If I've now got to pay out extra for the right to use something I have already legally paid for, then as far as I'm concerned Sony can kiss my ringpiece. I'll turn to PS3 piracy just to prove a point. God damn Sony pisses me off.

- Charging for DLC that's already on disks.
- Making us relinquish our legal rights to be able to play online (the 'no sueing us' clause in the new TOS)
- Fucking over poor people by making us pay for online passes for games we've paid for.

It's bullshit, I tell you. Sony need a damn good kick up the arse from the gaming public to show them we're not their bitches.

 

[Maedhros]

This shit is what piracy brings to the table. If people didn't pirate, shit like that wouldn't be necessary.

Deal with it.

This is more related to used games than piracy. Pirates are already used to no online so this won't affect them at all. Used game buyers and legit ones are the only ones who will be affected.

Of course that was the case I was talking about. Pirates don't give a shit, and legitimate consumers always get screwed in the end. But don't think that if pirates could play online they wouldn't, that's not the true.

People always look for things to justify piracy and shit.

 

[Dimensional]

This shit is what piracy brings to the table. If people didn't pirate, shit like that wouldn't be necessary.

Deal with it.

This is more related to used games than piracy. Pirates are already used to no online so this won't affect them at all. Used game buyers and legit ones are the only ones who will be affected.

Of course that was the case I was talking about. Pirates don't give a shit, and legitimate consumers always get screwed in the end. But don't think that if pirates could play online they wouldn't, that's not the true.

People always look for things to justify piracy and shit.

Your right. Pirates don't give a shit, and it's us legit users that get the shaft. It's coming down to a simple situation of "Pirate or don't play". We either pirate the game because we can't afford them and stay offline, or we just don't get the game at all. Sony would then jack up the prices even more to keep making a profit, until finally everyone has enough, nobody buys their crap, and suddenly they have to bring the prices down by a lot just to get someone to buy it.

 

[Hyro-Sama]

Sony can suck my cock. This is why consoles are stupid. PC FTW. I do not need to play FPS on a PS3. FPS are so much more enjoyable on a PC. Sony can take their online tickets and shove it up their ass.