Sony Confirms its Own 'Online Pass,' Starting With Resistance 3

@xyzygy:

Theres also the draw that if you wanna buy used games then you would have to stick with Microsoft which could potentially be a sizeable increase in Microsofts consumers. Theres a small audience that mainly buys used games who would be forced into Microsofts hands.

I really hate this "double-dipping" that seems to be becoming standard in the industry just now. It's not as if pre-owned games are putting extra strain on servers or such cos if you bought the game used, then someone had to have traded it in first of all right? I don't see how publishers can take the moral high ground here. Just because someone buys a game pre-owned doesn't mean the publisher is losing out on a sale because more often than not, I refuse to pay full price for games so if I can pick up a second hand copy for £15 less then all the better and the publisher has already had the sale from when the game was bought originally. Although if you're only saving say, £2 or so and you still decide to buy pre-owned then you sir, are an idiot!

@xyzygy:

Theres also the draw that if you wanna buy used games then you would have to stick with Microsoft which could potentially be a sizeable increase in Microsofts consumers. Theres a small audience that mainly buys used games who would be forced into Microsofts hands.

Ironically, this works in MS's favor because it makes the 50$ you spend on Live more worth the money. The money you'll save buying used would probably add up to be more than 50$ a year anyway.

I don't usually buy second-hand games and I rarely play anything online.. but I'm still very much against this idea.

I can't think of any other product that could get away something like this. It's just as bad as charging for DLC that's already on the disc. If you paid for the game, you should be able to access all of it.. second hand or not.

@Oscrix said:

Completely gross. There goes another reason to tout the PS3 over the 360.

At least you don't have to pay $60 a year to be able to play online.

Ironically, this works in MS's favor because it makes the 50$ you spend on Live more worth the money. The money you'll save buying used would probably add up to be more than 50$ a year anyway.

@Kyle said:

@Claude said:

@Kyle said:

@Claude said:

Haha, and people bitched about friend codes on the Wii.

Right... Because friend codes are fucking horrible. ............. (??????)

Sure they are, but almost every game you buy today has some long ass code involved. Now when people buy a game, they'll have to enter their online pass code and some form of DLC code. I never understood how people could be so anal about friend codes when codes are everywhere.

Because an in-box code is something you can do once when you're not playing the game. They're not fun, but you can put it in once before you start and be done with it, and they only apply to you. With a friend code, not only do you have to go around continuously giving out your code and inputting other peoples' codes, it also makes it impossible to be dropped into a game with a person you enjoy playing with, and then add them to your friends list. Of course, all this applies to an imaginary universe in which there are any wii games that have online support that actually works, and that people want to play. And voice chat for more than 5 games.

Can't argue with that.

I really hate this "double-dipping" that seems to be becoming standard in the industry just now. It's not as if pre-owned games are putting extra strain on servers or such cos if you bought the game used, then someone had to have traded it in first of all right? I don't see how publishers can take the moral high ground here. Just because someone buys a game pre-owned doesn't mean the publisher is losing out on a sale because more often than not, I refuse to pay full price for games so if I can pick up a second hand copy for £15 less then all the better and the publisher has already had the sale from when the game was bought originally. Although if you're only saving say, £2 or so and you still decide to buy pre-owned then you sir, are an idiot!

Least it's starting with Resistance 3! That thing won't sell well anyway, hopefully management will think it's because of the online pass.

@theredace: But this doesn't just affect Gamestop. It artificially devalues games across the entire second-hand market.

I don't like GameStop, but blaming them is silly. They're just a business that deals in used games. Their success doesn't excuse publishers trying to stomp all over consumer rights. There are better ways of getting money out of us. Maybe we should force publishers to find them instead of just rolling over for every stupid, abusive idea that comes into their minds. Publishers don't care about us, whether or not this is fair, nor how it affects the gaming industry, retail, or the second hand market, so we've got no business worrying for them. Worry about your own damn wallet like a consumer is supposed to.

Ironically, this works in MS's favor because it makes the 50$ you spend on Live more worth the money. The money you'll save buying used would probably add up to be more than 50$ a year anyway. 
 
@Zirilius said:

How is everyone so pissed that Sony is doing this but not EA or any of the other publishers out there doing this? Is it really that big of a deal to enter a 12 digit code on PSN to be able to play online?

 
I for one think it's great idea because at least this way we don't get some bullshit DRM that requires to have an always on connection.

Bummer, I was planning on getting R3 through Gamefly. So much for that.

@Kyle said:

@Claude said:

Haha, and people bitched about friend codes on the Wii.

Right... Because friend codes are fucking horrible. ............. (??????)

Sure they are, but almost every game you buy today has some long ass code involved. Now when people buy a game, they'll have to enter their online pass code and some form of DLC code. I never understood how people could be so anal about friend codes when codes are everywhere.

How is everyone so pissed that Sony is doing this but not EA or any of the other publishers out there doing this? Is it really that big of a deal to enter a 12 digit code on PSN to be able to play online?

 
I for one think it's great idea because at least this way we don't get some bullshit DRM that requires to have an always on connection.

@theredace: But this doesn't just affect Gamestop. It artificially devalues games across the entire second-hand market.

I don't like GameStop, but blaming them is silly. They're just a business that deals in used games. Their success doesn't excuse publishers trying to stomp all over consumer rights. There are better ways of getting money out of us. Maybe we should force publishers to find them instead of just rolling over for every stupid, abusive idea that comes into their minds. Publishers don't care about us, whether or not this is fair, nor how it affects the gaming industry, retail, or the second hand market, so we've got no business worrying for them. Worry about your own damn wallet like a consumer is supposed to.

@Kyle said:

I AM COMPLETELY SHOCKED AND ALSO OUTRAGED! RAAAAAAH! I will also now sit here in this comment section for the rest of the day, furiously arguing idiotic points with other idiots until we all pass out! Seriously though, whatever. People who make things and maintain them want to get payed for them. Go figure.

I don't give a fuck what they want. I already bought the game. I shouldn't have to pay $10 more so my roommate can play the game, too. The same way I shouldn't have to buy another copy of a book, movie, CD, cable subscription, internet subscription, or other service or consumable just because there might be more than one person in my household who might utilize it.

to surprised... If I was in the industry I'd probably do that...

@theredace said:

@Branthog said:

More "fuck the consumer" innovation. Have more than one gamer in the household? You get to pay us more money! You know, the same way you have to pay extra money for cable if you have two viewers in the household. Or how you have to pay double for a music CD or DVD if there is more than one person in the household.

This isn't "fuck the consumer", it's "fuck Gamestop". Think about it. Gamestop can't reasonably sell a used game that requires a game pass for $50-$55, so they simply have to lower the price or else no consumer will buy it. So the consumer pays less for the used game, and then makes up the difference by paying it directly to Sony/the developer and in the end the consumer pays the same price. This is great for both the consumer AND the developer: 1. Sony/the developer gets a portion of that used sale, so they care less about games being sold used. 2. The consumer gets the option of paying for multiplayer IF THEY WANT IT. If you buy a used version and you don't want multiplayer, chances are you just paid less for that game than if you bought it used under the old system. I don't see any downside to this unless you're Gamestop.

Yes and no. The only problem comes when you realize that these passes are tied to an account. It's not 20 bucks a console, it's 20 bucks a person who wants to use the game on a separate fucking account. That means If I want achievements, my brother wants an achievement, my dad wants an achievement, and to get it we need to play online, we each have to pay the price, or two of us will even with a brand new copy. It's not intended as a fuck you directly to consumers, but ignoring the impact on the consumers is pretty much a "fuck you". I don't want to spend 5 minutes struggling with some awful on-screen keyboard to type in a code just to play the game I just bought. Consoles are supposed to be that thing you play and things "just work." Not that thing you play where even after a lengthy and sometimes required install you then have to punch in code, making it no different from installing a PC game from a physical disc. Consoles are also far more often a shared thing in a home. I don't know anyone who's 360 or PS3 has only one active online account. Those consoles are used by everyone, and forcing people to pay on a per-account basis is just gross. Even worse is when you have to get a new account for whatever reason and lose all of that shit. It's a bad solution to the problem, end of story.

Hopefully this stops the used game sales, at least for a little bit. CHEAPOS!!!!

Completely gross. There goes another reason to tout the PS3 over the 360.

another reason why pc is better

@ESREVER said:

I buy all my games new, so this doesn't really bother me.

Same here.

@rndmtask said:

Sony, stop making these so goddamned complicated. Make PSN+ mandatory to play online, one price one service, for all games. Keep it simple, stupid.

LOL at this guy

More "fuck the consumer" innovation. Have more than one gamer in the household? You get to pay us more money! You know, the same way you have to pay extra money for cable if you have two viewers in the household. Or how you have to pay double for a music CD or DVD if there is more than one person in the household.

I buy all my games new, so this doesn't really bother me.

@Branthog said:

I don't give a fuck what they want. I already bought the game. I shouldn't have to pay $10 more so my roommate can play the game, too. The same way I shouldn't have to buy another copy of a book, movie, CD, cable subscription, internet subscription, or other service or consumable just because there might be more than one person in my household who might utilize it.

 if you mean you'd just lend the game to him and he's your roommate it means he can play the game on your PS3 meaning another online pass won't be required, simple.

I buy all my games new, so this doesn't really bother me.

Sony, stop making these so goddamned complicated. Make PSN+ mandatory to play online, one price one service, for all games. Keep it simple, stupid.

Welcome back CD keys, you've been less than everywhere for too long.

These passes don't bother me. I buy my games new all the time, at full price or on sale, so this pass, the MK pass or EA's passes don't effect me.

I feel like people over react or misunderstand things like this a lot. If you buy the game new it will not change your experience at all. If you buy it used, then ~$10 for multiplayer isn't that big of a deal if the used price was low enough.

If I do buy a game used it's always like a year or more after it came out. 90% of the time there is no one even playing the game online anymore anyways so this makes no difference to me. The only thing that sucks about it is having to put in a code every time you buy a game which really isn't a big deal.

I don't really play games online, so whatever.

Sony, stop making these so goddamned complicated. Make PSN+ mandatory to play online, one price one service, for all games. Keep it simple, stupid.

This doesn't really surprise me, given the relative acceptance EA's own online pass program has seen. And if anyone's to be blamed for the rise of online passes, it's Gamestop and the publishers. Gamestop pushes used games so hard that online passes became inevitable and publishers keep pricing at or near $60 for so long that consumers gravitate towards any used copies. 
 
But for Sony's part, an online pass program is probably more of an attempt to give themselves another revenue stream for PSN. Bandwidth ain't cheap, folks, and the games need to keep playing.

I don't give a fuck what they want. I already bought the game. I shouldn't have to pay $10 more so my roommate can play the game, too. The same way I shouldn't have to buy another copy of a book, movie, CD, cable subscription, internet subscription, or other service or consumable just because there might be more than one person in my household who might utilize it.

Sony, stop making these so goddamned complicated. Make PSN+ mandatory to play online, one price one service, for all games. Keep it simple, stupid.

Sweet, thanks for making this happen GameStop who turned used game sales into their greatest source of income.

I buy all my games new, so this doesn't really bother me.

@Branthog said:

More "fuck the consumer" innovation. Have more than one gamer in the household? You get to pay us more money! You know, the same way you have to pay extra money for cable if you have two viewers in the household. Or how you have to pay double for a music CD or DVD if there is more than one person in the household.

Part of your initial investment pays for the online servers for your expected online play time. That doesn't mean that everyone else can use it for free. A DVD, CD, Book, etc don't cause the producers of that content more when your friend borrows it. Here there's an additional cost. Key difference. Oh, and yeah, anyone can play the game all they want. Just not the online. But, hey, rage on internet!

Makes good business sense to me.

@Oscrix said:

Completely gross. There goes another reason to tout the PS3 over the 360.

At least you don't have to pay $60 a year to be able to play online.

It is basically because of the used games market. 
Don't really mind tbh.

If you're willing to be cheap and wait for a game to be pre-owned price to play the game, then you deserve to be paying $5-$10 extra to access the online functionality. Buying a game new, means you don't pay anything extra on top of that new game price. It's fair.

Pre-owned games have been around for how long now? 
This is absurd, an ugly swipe at a benign aspect of the games industry.

It was only a matter of time for this to happen. I don't blame Sony for trying to make up or lost sales.  As long as they are around and continue to offer better products than Microsoft at about the same price then I am happy.