Ooh, What’s “PSN Pass”?

nofi 55 Comments

Looks like Sony have glanced over at what EA and most other major publishers are doing with regards to charging a set fee for multiplayer on used copies of games and gone “we’ll have some of that.”

Or, at least, that’s what it looks like.

psn pass

Gaze longingly at the bundle box for Resistance 3 – found here – seems that way, doesn’t it?  We’re assuming this is some kind of ‘pass’ system similar to those around, but possibly for use on more than one game.

“Network features only available in countries that have Playstation Store,” says the big blue box, which at least confirms that whatever it is will require access to the PSN Store.

We must stress that we have no idea what this actually is.  Hopefully we’ll find out soon.

Via GAF.

Tags:

Related stories from TSA

Future Sony Games To Use PSN Pass
Your First Glimpse Of PSN Pass
PSN Pass Will Be “System Level”
2011: The Year The Publishers Fought Back

55 Comments

  1. So it basically grants you the online passes for all the games so you can buy second hand?

    • Seems a fair enough deal.

    • May just be the game on the box.

    • I think the complete opposite. Every Playstation registered must have a pass but from now on new ones have one included but anyone buying a second hand PS will have to buy this…maybe I’m just the pessimist though ;-)

  2. The beginning of the end… Of the beginning? Soon become standard across all publishers I’d think.

    • I’m curiousif it will be over multiple games though…

  3. Guess I wont be buying sony games either now, i absolutely refuse to buy a game if it requires a pass (whether im buying new or used)

    its developer tax in a nut shell, and its outragious

    • Out-what?

      • Ragious??

        Hmm that’s a new one.

    • Well why? Seems only fair to me. The developers/publishers don’t get any money from secondhand, and in this way they do.

      • I don’t see anything wrong with it either. If buying games second-hand hurts developers then they should have a right to counter it.

      • Why should they be entitled?

        What other market do you see the manufacturer making profit off the second hand sales.

        Publishers set the RRP, if they are not making enough profit from the initial unit sale then they should increase RRP.

        What I believe they are effectively trying to do is kill the second hand games market period. They have no real interest in making money off network passes etc, the end game is all about forcing every potential customer to buy new. It goes alot deeper than this but I’ll end up writing an essay.

        If the gaming industry manages to pull this off, where does it stop. Will other media industries follow suit?

        Mainstream gaming has brought a lot of good things for us gamers, but it’s also turned it into a multi billion dollar industry where profit is king. DLC, network passes it’s a very dangerous road to be on right now.

        The consumer will only take so much nikel-and-diming.

      • Totally agree, Huddy.

      • I’m fine with the second-hand market dying for all the industires…

      • I’m with huddy on this one too!
        “I just read a really good book, would you like to borrow it?”
        “Ooh, yes, please”
        “Sorry, it’ll cost you.”
        “Forget it then, and remind me not to bother with that particular author again”
        “Yeah, my mistake, I thought by buying it, I owned it… More fool me!”
        Vive la capitalisme :s

      • no more libraries?
        no more art galleries?
        all charity shops closed down?

        that what you mean by the second hand market dying for all industries vogan?

        i’ve made my position clear on this subject, we have a right to transfer ownership of our property, if that means reselling it, the publisher has absolutely no right to stop us.

        but right now we don’t know that that’s what this is about, so i’ll save my full rant until we have some confirmation about this.
        but i think i’ll get one prepared, just in case. o_O

      • You guys are absolutely right, you DO have a right to transfer ownership, but what you don’t have a right to do is allow someone else continued access to a network service you don’t own.

        Using examples like a book or a CD is ridiculous, they don’t have network connectivity and don’t offer additional services (multiplayer) that cost the original manufacturer money to upkeep. Think of it this way, when you buy the game new you get all the advertised features, including access to the online multiplayer service – which costs the game publisher money to establish and maintain (dedicated or matchmaking servers for instance). The publisher is happy to allow you continued access to that service because part the price you paid for the game title is being used to subsidise the cost. It also subsidises the cost of continued refinement of the online multiplayer experience through patches etc. When you tire of a game, or move onto a new one, you stop playing it online and thus reduce the traffic and load on the multiplayer servers for that game – and by definition reduce the cost of upkeep for the publisher.

        Now if that game is subsequently re-sold, the new owner will most likely want to play online and hence they are re-adding a cost to publisher to support that activity, yet they haven’t personally made any financial contribution to support that.

        I have no issue with online passes, you don’t have a right to access network services simply because you’re in possession of a plastic disc. I don’t see how it stands to kill the second hand market, it just means consumers need to factor in the cost of a pass if they’re thinking about multiplayer.

        To put it in perspective, I have heard people use a car as a comparison, saying that when you buy a second hand car you don’t have to pay the original manufacturer a fee just to drive it. Whilst that is true, you also don’t always get access to the factory warranty when you buy second hand, as this ‘service’ is something that is sold to the original owner as part of the deal for buying the car new. Think of multiplayer as a ‘service’ and you can see the parallel.

      • I don’t see how the new person (who bought my pre-owned copy) playing online is any different to if I choose to keep the product & play online with it myself. The publisher still got that initial outlay & it’s not like they have to support an additional player, as they are simply using what I paid for – Just the same as if I chose to keep the product & play it myself.

      • It’s not for them to make money out of second hand games. In no other type of second hand market do the original sellers get any money back from it. ( can someone put that in a sentence that makes sense please? )

      • @ Forrest_01

        That’s not how economic modelling works. It would be fairly trivial to estimate how long a given player will continue play a game online based on historical data and market research. Given that information a publisher would also be able to calculate roughly how much they are paying to support the online gaming needs of clients that didn’t actually pay them for the game, I’m sure that figure isn’t insignificant.

        Let’s apply some rough numbers just to add context…

        Assuming for Generic FPS A the average time a consumer is expected to remain interested in and therefore utilise the online gaming service is 3 months after purchase, a publisher/dev is able to calculate how much they will need to spend on maintaining commensurate network services appropriate to the predicted sales estimate. Let’s also say the game sells ~1 million copies. Now, if (for example) 25% of original owners also decide to trade in the game after they are done with the single player and have got their 2-3 months of multiplayer enjoyment, you’re now looking at 250,000 second hand owners utilising the network services for a FURTHER 2-3 months without having contributed a cent towards it’s upkeep.

        (Potentially) each time the game is resold, a further 2-3 months of online gaming support is required per user. When you start talking in the hundreds of thousands of users the costs surely add up quickly.

        So, imho it’s not as simple as saying the new owner is just playing instead of the original owner as they are clearly extending the time any one owner would play online.

        Bear in mind, I’m just using example figures here and rough averages but it’s the scale of economy I want to demonstrate. Ultimately, if a game is good enough people will buy it second hand and spring for a multiplayer pass. If it’s not good enough, it won’t sell the pass. Either way, devs that deserve it will get the financial support they need.

      • but they have already received the payment, from the initial purchase & may receive extra, from dlc purchases on traded copies.

    • looks like you will be playing no ones games soon then.

      • in all fairness PC games have been doing it for donkeys years in the form of serials and the like .

      • not the same Burgess_101, yeah the serials may restrict is somehow.
        But with serials it usually can be used multiple times, and if it can’t they usually have an option to revoke the serial code online, so it can be used again.

  4. What is it meant to be?

  5. When I read the title, I was hoping for something that just gives you the features of PS+ that are actually useful to me. This just seems like you’re going to pay a set amount per year, and then you probably get a discount to all the online passes there are.

    • I would actualy love to see this – A knockdown price version of PSN Plus that allows access to the cloud storage & perhaps discounts off of the store etc, but without all of the guff of demos, betas & all the stuff i am never gonna touch.

      I’d sign up in a heartbeat.

      • It’s the otherway around for me – I want the Cloud storage and the demos and betas, couldn’t care about getting discounts or free old games.

  6. Sony have been doing this on PSP for some time. Still boils my urine as it stops me and my brothers going splits on games, now it’s the cost of the game and 2 online passes for us to go thirds. My game buying has gone down since this practice started and will continue to do so as games become even less value for money.

    • Huh, 2 online passes? You don’t need that on the same PS3, do you?

      • Nope, but my brothers and I don’t live together, we’d generally take turns at buying games we like, then just rotate them. With the exception of games we want to play together online such as Brink. That way we could afford to buy more new games between us.

        Seriously considering going into pc gaming, I’ve got a pretty good laptop I bought for working on projects from home and the games, especially on steam, are so much cheaper.

  7. one pass per PSN account, so if they are two, it needs two PSN codes.

    • Ahh, thanks for making it clear.

  8. What ever it is sign me up!

    But if it’s for 2nd hand games then I’m not fussed really as I buy all mine new.

  9. I’m tempted to buy this bundle, even though I already have a slim, what a lovely box.

  10. “PASS PSN”…you mean “PSN PASS”

Comments are now closed for this post.