Sony Expanding Online Pass
Online pass gathers pace
Published: 13:00, 24/08/2010 by Chris [cc_star].
103One of the good things about having a massive European trade show like Gamescom is that SCEE President, Andrew House, makes himself available for interviews. Videogames industry website gamesindustry.biz got chance to catch up with House and grill him about all things PlayStation.
When asked “How do you feel about a publisher like EA making online play an extra payable component on PSN with the Online Pass for second-hand consumers?” House replied;
“On the principle of making online portions of the game available or unlocked from the disc-based release for a fee, we’re broadly supportive of that. And we’re exploring actively the same option for our own content.”
Of course Sony have already adopted this tactic with the PSP release of Modnation Racers, but this is the first indication that Sony would like to roll out the second-hand revenue generator across more of their release.
To my recollection this makes EA, THQ, Ubisoft, TakeTwo (through 2K Games) and now Sony backing the Online Pass as a method to attempt to generate revenue from pre-owned sales, leaving just Activision from the major players to show their hand.
Given that businesses are in the business of making ever increasing amounts of money and that it’s safe to assume that gamers want ever more stuff including in their purchase or free of charge, is Online Pass a good compromise? Let us know in the comments below.
Via Eurogamer.
Most Comments This Week
- Gaikai’s Streaming – Does This Mean No PS4? [65]
- PSN Store Update: 23/05/12 [55]
- First Party Vita Games Drop To £12 On PSN [52]
- PSN Store Hit With 80023163 Errors [51]
- Is Something Big Coming To PlayStation Plus Soon? [50]
- “Leap” Motion Controller Could Revolutionise Gaming [43]
- Ghost Recon: Future Soldier PS3 Install Is Huge [42]
- Australian & New Zealand D3 Players Suffer High Ping Rates [41]
- Sony Files Patent For Game-Interrupting Soda Adverts [40]
- Ghost Recon Future Soldier Review (PS3, Xbox 360) [39]
Latest Reader Comments
-
New Hardware, New Plus: All Eyes On Sony This E3
- 04:24 Shaggy2Dope: I know this is a European site, but is anybody from the site or sraff going to the event?
- 01:37 Awayze: I really hope at this E3, Sony bring a major update to the PS3 such as instant trophy syncing as soon as...
- 01:36 samiro05: This is definitely a must for the PSV
- 01:30 stueeeee: Lol imagine, on the cusp of possible new hardware, their big announcement turns out to be…..a new...
- 00:47 JBoo: I would buy another PS3 if there is a slimmer version coming out :P But i am not going to think about it(i.e I...
- TSA Speculates: Why You Might Not Need To Buy A PS4
- Microsoft Job Offer Mentions “Next Generation” Of Xbox
- Doctor Who: The Eternity Clock Review (PS3)
- Community Round-Up: 26/05/12
- Gaikai’s E3 Invite All But Confirms PS3 Streaming Partnership
- Sony Files Patent For Game-Interrupting Soda Adverts
TSAtv: Original Video Content
Batman book review
Kris Dancing, again
Joe Danger interview
Sonic Generations
24/08/2010 at 13:03
Member since: Aug 2009
Wouldn’t it be better to give shorter games and flawed games a lower price?
24/08/2010 at 13:06
Member since: Dec 2009
Doesn’t that happen already?
Brand new Dark Void was €17 in my GameStop a mere two WEEKS after its release.
24/08/2010 at 13:30
Member since: Aug 2008
And look how much Naughty Bear is now!
24/08/2010 at 14:01
Member since: Forever
Too much!
24/08/2010 at 14:47
Member since: Aug 2008
Yes, it would be better, but what about games that don’t have big online aspects, or none at all? Take for example, GOW3,no online,so second hand will have no final level or some thing unless you buy a code?!?! stupid. Just claim money back from the 2nd hand retailers and be done with it. its a crap system having codes for every thing! Taking this years Fifa round a mates house and not being able to do 2vs2 online is a joke! Punishing those who by new!
24/08/2010 at 13:03
Member since: Aug 2008
I’m all for the online Pass, and I’m pretty sure Acti-Blizz will follow-suit at the very least, but almost certain we’ll be seeing the subscription based method from them.
24/08/2010 at 13:04
Member since: Feb 2009
No. It’s a stupid idea.
Also, doesn’t the fact that online is payed for on 360 regardless compensate for this?
24/08/2010 at 13:17
Member since: Aug 2008
But you’re paying MS to use their tracking / friend / download servers, not the game devs / publishers.
24/08/2010 at 13:25
Member since: Feb 2009
I’ve always found it ridiculous that you pay full price for a game on 360, when effectively you only buy access to half of it. The offline half obviously.
24/08/2010 at 13:35
Member since: Forever
Live is only £2.30 per month and it gives you so much more than online access to games, the discounts alone mean it can pay for itself many times over.
On top of that you get a worldclass infrastructure and unrivalled party features that are incomparable to piece-meal approach of the PSN.
I’d quite happily £2.30/month for its features without online gaming, if only Sony would give me the option.
24/08/2010 at 14:20
Member since: Jan 2010
What a load of hot cock.
“World class infrastucture” are you kidding? It’s peer to peer CC, have you even tried it? Oh that’s right, you don’t own an Xbox. The PSN actually has MORE games with dedicated servers because Sony isn’t as anal as MS about letting people into their glass house network.
Sure the party features are neat, but why charge for it? Sony provide a bunch of online features the Xbox doesn’t and all for free (Facebook, Picasa, Netflix (US), iPlayer (UK), iView (AU) etc).
TBH, I don’t see the point/advantage of taking a party (be it 3, 4 or 10 people) and skipping from game to game with gay abandon. Perhaps because I’m 35 and not 15, and perhaps because my friends don’t all suffer from ADD and need to change games every 15 minutes. Perhaps.
24/08/2010 at 14:42
Member since: Forever
What a load of hot cock? that’s Saturday night sorted then.
Of course most of the games are p2p hosted – but that doesn’t happen by magic and internet voodoo, its all tied up in into one joined up infrastructure with servers that allow speeds that will make Sony fanboys weep, a seamless experience from parting up on the dashboard and joining an in-game lobby, playing a game coming back to the dashboard, inserting another game and joining that in-game lobby whilst never losing connection with each other is just a benefit that isn’t possible on an eco-system built on a piece meal approach, where hardly anything from one game to the next utilises the same way of doing things.
There is far more tech at work than simple p2p during games, and eco system expands away from the console with a whole host of features even down to the basics, of XBL messaging from the website and a freakin’ website for Marketplace, then of course there’s the flexibility of gamercards which websites are free to use in a multitude of community building ways.
For a fraction over £2 per month, which the discounts more than save you, is a service that rivals can only dream of.
And what’s owning a console got to do with anything if you know real people made out of flesh, blood and stuff, who by chance just may…. own a 360?
The distinct choice between a joined up extremely fast service and an eco-system away from the console which costs a small amount, or a piecemeal approach which is free and its possible to bolt things on, is clear.
Both have benefits, everybody wins
24/08/2010 at 14:54
Member since: Jul 2009
What an impressive amount of cock. Words I didn’t think I’d utter today. Fridays surely, but not innocent old Tuesday.
24/08/2010 at 15:22
Member since: Oct 2008
@JesseDeya
Going to try and ignore all the talk about hot cocks and focus on whats wrong with the rest of your comment.
“Sure the party features are neat, but why charge for it?”
Because they’re “neat”!
Sony provide a bunch of online features the Xbox doesn’t and all for free (Facebook, Picasa, Netflix (US), iPlayer (UK), iView (AU) etc).
Are fucking kidding? LIVE has Facebook, and propper facebook at that, the PSN facebook functionlaity is pratically useless.
And LIVE had NetFlix before PSN and it even has party capabilities.
“I don’t see the point/advantage of taking a party (be it 3, 4 or 10 people) and skipping from game to game with gay abandon”
If you cant see the advantage of not losing connection between a group of friends who may play more than one game as opposed to sending messgaes and replying to messages (or eventually using the phone to call people) just to coordinate some playing ,then again, not the brightest star in sky.
“Perhaps because I’m 35 and not 15, and perhaps because my friends don’t all suffer from ADD and need to change games every 15 minutes. Perhaps.”
Ironically, that’s the most childish argument i’ve ever heard on behalf or against any console.
As a owner of both consoles I get my single player games on my PS3 and my online games on my 360, because LIVE does make that process a lot easier and enjoyable. Having to be in the same game, in the same room/lobby at the same time to be able to communicate to my friends just seems ancient after using LIVE. For a lot of people, gaming is a social experience, so having more robust social features is an obvious advantage.
Now about all that hot cock…
24/08/2010 at 15:52
Member since: Jan 2010
So cc, the P2P online gaming on PS3 _does_ happen by magic and internet voodoo?
You say “Of course most of the games are p2p hosted – but that doesn’t happen by magic and internet voodoo, its all tied up in into one joined up infrastructure with servers that allow speeds that will make Sony fanboys weep”…
…I’m sorry, how does Live make Xbox P2P gaming faster? Oh that’s right, it doesn’t. Honestly, I feel like you’ve never played a PS3 title online. I do, regularly, and it works f’n fantastically well. Live is no more immune to poor dev code than any PSN title, just have a look at the complaints when BFBC1 and BF1943 went live. Not that you would remember as you seem to just talk in theoretical hyperbole most of the time.
And who tf cares about websites away from the console? For what it’s worth PSN, has exactly the same thing… or haven’t you bothered to notice? Sounds to me like you’re just sucking up the hype spruked to you by your flesh and blood Xbox friends instead of actually trying both services to find out for yourself (as I have).
I’ll not for a second pretend that Live isn’t a good service, but to pretend it’s so vastly superior to PSN (to quote you, worldclass and unrivalled vs piecemeal) is absolutely taking the piss.
I’ll ask again, why do I _need_ to change games with my party intact? What would stop me sending them a message (which, gasp, you can do in PSN) and telling them to join a new game? Why would this conceivably happen more than once a week let alone more than once per night? Perhaps I really do need to be Gen Y to get it.
24/08/2010 at 16:11
Member since: Jan 2010
@Juelz345
Now deny that you weren’t an Xbox gamer first, live your Gamer Score and have more friends on Xbox than PS3.
I’ve seen people like you a thousand times before. There is nothing wrong with WHY you prefer Xbox Live, just be honest about the reality. It’s not that the PSN couldn’t offer you a fun multiplayer experience, it’s just that you are already invested in the Xbox multiplayer experience, you have a Gamerscore, your friends are there and you want to stay.
Live does NOT have proper Facebook, in fact it was a laughable joke I mentioned that in the first place because the PS3 has had Facebook since day one, via their browser. You know, the thing that lets you get online outside the Live bubble.
As for Netflix, sure, you could get that on Xbox… if you’re willing to pay – ON TOP of your regular Netflix subscription. Access on the PS3 costs you nothing more, and nor should it. You conveniently ignored all the rest of my point, Picasa and Facebook photo gallery integration is fantastic on PS3 but I can tell based on your comments you’ve not even taken the time to look.
As for iPlayer, iView, Yahoo!7 and all the other free streaming the PS3 offers… I guess you can just ignore that too right? When Hulu hits and PS3 users get it free whilst Xbox users have to Pony for Live I guess that will be awesome too right? Perhaps you should check out PSN+ and see the kind of value a subscription _should_ get you.
As I mentioned above, Live IS a good service and I have never, and will never dispute that – however – to suggest that actual multiplayer gaming on Live is vastly superior the equivalent game on the PS3 is tremendously blinkered. I’ve been gaming online since the Quake 1 demo back in ’96, so as I’ve mentioned above, perhaps it’s because I don’t need my sugar rush right this mf’ing second that the PSN seem perfectly adequate to me. I certainly wouldn’t be unsupported in saying the PS3 has an older demographic than the Xbox. Perhaps with age comes several extra seconds of patience?
25/08/2010 at 05:05
Member since: May 2010
@jessedaya
im 15 but i totally agree with you
25/08/2010 at 08:04
Member since: Dec 2008
One thing I’ll say about any ps3 vs 360 argument is I don’t understand the currency on a 360. Does google have an exchange rate? ;)
25/08/2010 at 08:09
Member since: Dec 2008
Of course I mean Microsoft points, or more commonly m$ ;) and it would appear the answer is yes! http://www.xboxpointsconverter.co.uk/
24/08/2010 at 13:12
Member since: Feb 2009
I think this is where the games industry is heading regardless of whether we as the consumers like it.
24/08/2010 at 13:13
Member since: Jun 2009
If the price of new games is reduced, then fine, but if not then it’s out of orders. Have they all forgot that most gamers trade in old games for new ones? Without people purchasing preowned games, alot of companies will be going out of business.
24/08/2010 at 13:29
Member since: Mar 2009
I think people are ashuming that with no second hand market that games wouldnt sell. They do sell, that game you bought that your going to use to trade in, how much did you pay for it? 9/10 full wack, as trading in an already pre-owned game will diminish its vaule.
Example, you bought COD6 for £25 pre-owned, and you go into gamestation where COD6 is still being sold pre-owned for £25. You then trade it in for a £49.99 COD black ops…Do you get £25 off? no, you get £10 £15 at a push, yet that copy which would now being sold to a third person, will be priced at £25.
People seem to forget that the prices charged for some pre-owned games is horrid, espcailly when you know the ‘vaule’ of the game when you go to trade it in is not even half what the shop is charging for it.
And I’ve made this other point time and time again, games cost MILLIONs of £/$ to make, so a company needs to make money, it doesnt make money then companys go bust = less games which = less choice = higher prices. £40 is a fair price for some games, and lets face it, if your trading in a game chances are you have got your moneys worth.
24/08/2010 at 13:41
Member since: Jun 2009
I understand what you are saying. My point is, many people can’t afford to buy £40 game. Therefore only get to play via preowned, but could still buy DLC from that Developer via PSN/onlive. Yes I understand the retailers sell more than what you traded it in for, but it’s still sold cheaper than the RRP. If the Developers have problems of not receiving money for preowned games, it needs to sort it out with the retailers, not burden the customers.
What people seem to forget is that only one person can play that game online at any time, so developers saying it costs/loses them money is rubbish if they are just charging for online access, because in the end, it wont be having any different effect on additional servers needed for the preowned market.
This online access business is crap, they are charging for something that someone has already bought when it was new. It’s the retailers they should be sorting this out with. Royalties or whatever, some sort of way of dealing with selling the game again.
Would you pay FORD extra money direct just to use your car on the road, just because you bought it from Bob down the road? Do FORD request that you do? No. It’s just them being greedy.
24/08/2010 at 13:59
Member since: Forever
Please never use the used car market when talking about games.
The car companies make huge profits from either their dealer network or after-sales service therefore leveraging the preowned car market for cash even if you never bought directly from them. There cannot be a single more inappropriate comparison.
But looking at what else you say, publishers are only seeing an alternative revenue stream to go after to further their business aims of making some money to stay in business.
We’ve already seen that gamers are not willing to pay over £40 for a new game which is what games cost 10 years ago despite games costing more and more to make, along with the fact that inflation has eroded the value of this £40 that a game sells for, so what do you want pubs to do if they can’t raise prices above £40/$60?
Sacrifice investment, therefore only sequels to big franchises with no new IP, ever, or look for other revenue streams to try and maintain the balance of cash cows vs new IP’s that currently exist?
Keep in mind that shops are also working off near zero margins with game sales so if the pubs were to go knocking on the door after some money, (the profit preowned props up low margin new games sales) it would be passed on to the customers anyway.
24/08/2010 at 14:19
Member since: Jun 2009
inflation works both ways. customers get hit, businesses get hit. The way I see it is game companies charging twice for one product, whether or not they have to put money into more games, it’s how I and alot of other people see it. The more they charge for online access, the less people buy preowned and new games, because they wont be able to afford it. I have already scaled back. Never have I traded in a game, until recently, because I need save the money because of the recession/inflation etc, so charging for preowned access wont help anyone in this climate. Have to see how it goes I guess.
24/08/2010 at 14:53
Member since: Aug 2008
I am with cc. The car industry comparison actually contradicts your argument. Car manufacturers make money from servicing and parts just as these developers want to make money from online content.
24/08/2010 at 15:17
Member since: Jun 2009
Devs make money from DLC, I see that as the same thing personally. I know people have the choice, but if the game is good enough, most gamers would purchase it.
24/08/2010 at 13:14
Member since: Jul 2009
I don’t mind them monetising a service where they actually offer something tangible (eg. Game X is great. I want to play it online and buy a bundled amount of time or a six month online pass (eg. £10 or so) so I can enjoy online tomfoolery.
However, I wouldn’t want to pay for a service online when they’re not hosting anything. LBP is a good example. Usually the sackboy with the fastest connection “hosts”.
24/08/2010 at 13:53
Member since: Aug 2008
I thought that was the case with most games, its the host who runs the game, not the publishers servers.. That was the case with COD:MW2 anyway, you could tell by the way the game froze and reconnected when the host jumped off when he was losing.
24/08/2010 at 13:27
Member since: Feb 2009
The problem is that games haven’t really increased in price in the last 10 years. Some N64 games were released costing £60 or £70. PS1 and PS2 games were £40/£45 for the first few years of their live before new releases eventually dropped to £30ish.
Prices will either go up or the 2nd hand market will have to take a big hit. It won’t be long before single player games require unlock keys (probably after a hour or so’s play). Shops will probably be given the ability to sell unlock keys as well so you don’t need an online connection.
24/08/2010 at 13:28
Member since: Dec 2009
I would like the option of buying the offline only content as i rarely use the online component.
24/08/2010 at 13:49
Member since: Forever
An interesting idea… but higher price with more ‘value added’ approach will always win out.
I’d like the option of paying Sky just for SkySports 1 & 2 HD, but they make me buy hundreds of other channels and a HD subscription for channels I never watch just to get the stuff I want.
If the companies were to offer a build your own package approach (which Sky pretend to do) and which your eluding to by buying an offline only version of the game for an RRP of say… £30 then it would lead to falling revenues over time rather than increasing revenues which all companies need to stay in business.
24/08/2010 at 13:55
Member since: Mar 2010
i dont think they are going to make as much money as they think off of this little venture
24/08/2010 at 14:53
Member since: Aug 2008
Me neither, I think it will just devalue the second hand market slightly, which will have a knock on effect on the new games market and less new games will be sold. Which will probably be blamed on piracy.
24/08/2010 at 13:55
Member since: Jul 2010
I will be buying less games if any of these systems go ahead. Fact.
I pay for internet, I pay for electricity. I already pay a lot for my gaming. I will not pay fees to play games I rarely play online.
I am about to subscribe to Monthly magazine and their quarterly essay. A well respected political journal. That is worth my money. Not pay to play.