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

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

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.

@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

@ESREVER said:

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

Same here.

another reason why pc is better

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

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

@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.

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

@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.

@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.

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.

@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.

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

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.

@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.

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.

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!

@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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

@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.

I don't see why people are bitching about this. This doesn't change anything for the people who buy games new. The developers needs to get paid for their work, and not get screwed over by used games sales.

Our online services are free my ass

I don't really care about online passes, since I don't use online, but I get where publishers are coming from.  They have to maintain servers for however long the game stays popular, and not everyone can rely on map packs the way Activision can.  Ensuring that only new buyers or code buyers can access those services helps to ensure that they can at the very least cover costs. 
 
Besides, this is nowhere near as insidious as EA's initial efforts.  Remember when they were locking away single-player content such as characters in ME2?  The online passes are hella better than that, lemmie tell ya.

I buy console games rarely as it is, but when I do they're new games; no concerns here.

It's been successful for EA, so I had a feeling one of the major companies would adopt it. Though the proposition doesn't seem too bad in and of itself, the principle behind it of "screwing over the consumer" is what annoys me.

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. [...] 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.

To those saying this is unfair to households with multiple users, I'm not sure what the concern is. There are two PS3s in my home, with three users. We've got a few games that had Online Passes, the most recent being Mortal Kombat, and none of us have had problems playing online with our own accounts. Not sure how it is with SOCOM 4, but the games I've got, it's never been an issue with multiple users.

online passes are really gay

@z3ro180: Excellent critique. You are a poet.

Buying games used is bad for the industry anyway. All you guys complaining need a little perspective.

For most games, a used copy at Gamestop is more expensive than a new copy on Amazon. So buy your games new on Amazon like I do. 

Well, alright then Sony, sell the games for $10 less and make the whole online pass an optional addon/DLC.

That could actually make this fair to the consumer who doesn't give a shit about PSN.

EA online pas + PSN online pass
 
REJOICE!!!!!
So now when you by an EA PS3 game you will have to pay $20 extra! 10 to EA and 10 to Sony. Woooot!
Fucking LMAO

Buying games used is bad for the industry anyway. All you guys complaining need a little perspective.

EA combated used game sales by giving premium content only to owners of new copies. Other third party developers should follow imo. It's a nice system that rewards purchasers of new copies without punishing used game owners. Unlike this online pass business which prevents used game owners from even playing the online component.

EA online pas + PSN online pass  REJOICE!!!!! So NOW when you by an EA PS3 game you will have to pay $20 extra! 10 to EA and 10 to Sony. Woooot! Fucking LMAO

Hope they don't think this will push new game sales, they are sadly mistaken.

Don't give a fuck. I've never bought a used PC game in my entire life because of serial codes, so I don't see the problem buying my PS3 games new (or buying them used and paying a bit extra for the locked content). 

Don't care. 
Publishers are free to do whatever they feel they need to do to get my money. 
Meanwhile, I will continue to do whatever I feel I need to do to keep my money. 
 
I don't know how these companies expect all their games to sell four or five million copies each when they're collectively releasing five to ten games a month. Videogames are a bloated industry that just simply releases too much product - and I've never seen an industry garner so much support through bumming, bitching, begging and painting their customers as villains. 
 
...oh, and as a direct result of this bloat, I never had any intention of buying Resistance 3. 

Well, alright then Sony, sell the games for $10 less and make the whole online pass an optional addon/DLC.

That could actually make this fair to the consumer who doesn't give a shit about PSN.

@Tennmuerti

EA online pas + PSN online pass  REJOICE!!!!! So now when you by an EA PS3 game you will have to pay $20 extra! 10 to EA and 10 to Sony. Woooot! Fucking LMAO