Sony has confirmed what we were all assuming – they’re bringing out a network pass program called PSN Pass. You’ll remember we brought you news about this brand new service yesterday evening – although at that stage it was mostly guess work on our half.
We were half right.
[drop2]It looks like PSN Pass is per game, and thus works like similar services from EA and other publishers – games will come with a code you enter to unlock multiplayer modes, meaning second hand copies will require a seperate purchase to activate such features.“We are always evaluating new programs for our online offering, and starting with Resistance 3 this September, we will be instituting a network pass program for PS3 games with online capabilities,” say Sony.
“This program will be game-specific. Games that are a part of this program will include a single-use registration code that grants the account holder redeeming the code full online access for that title. This is an important initiative as it allows us to accelerate our commitment to enhancing premium online services across our first party game portfolio.”
Resistance 3 is the first game to official go under the PSN Pass moniker, although obviously it’s hardly the first game from the publisher that needs a code to use certain features of a game – some PSP games like ModNation Racers had this last year.
So, go on – what do you think? Is this a serious knock to the second hand market?
Bodachi
Fine with me, I buy all my games new.
nofi
Might mean lower value for trade-ins, though.
Bodachi
I’m not really fussed as I do most of my shopping online as it is cheaper.
Foxhound
Like brand new games too much. Its lovefilm and co who will suffer.
fattyuk
Very much doubt love film with be effected by this! Only the independent game rental services will be.
philzy85
“Fine with me, I buy all my games new.”
It’s also fine with me as I rarely play games online, usually ONLY to get the online trophies and lately I’ve lost interest in collecting them anyway. So this wont stop me from buying my games second hand.
obiadekanobi1980
but surley when that player gets rid of there copy of the game they leave a space unocupied on the server so whats the harm of giving that space to the next buyer of the game i think the pass should be tied to the disk and not the persons tag i just bought need for speed hot pursuit off me mate for a tenner Bargian!!! i thought until i put it i the drive of my ps3 booted it up and its asking me to pay £7.99 to go online WTF they have already had the money £39.99 off my mate if you dont want pre owned gamers on you r servers dont put online into the game i for one wouldnt miss it 1 bit
Lewis Murray
No problems here, developers shouldn’t be expected to pay for server costs and bandwidth for games that haven’t got any revenue from…
Seems pretty fair to me.
Gamoc
No. Not good.
OllyBobs
I agree, this worries me slightly.
Jambo
Personally, as with EAs pass before this and Codemasters one for DiRT, I am all for this.
Used games are cool but I personally think that it is unfair the way stores can sell a used copy with no recompense for the devs.
Didn’t always feel this way but since they started asking me if I wanted a used copy each time I buy a game have started to feel this way.
Cerberus64
The devs have already been ‘recompensed’ – WHEN THE GAME WAS BOUGHT AT FULL PRICE IN THE FIRST PLACE!
fattyuk
Example 1
1 new game = £40
10 new games = £400
10 people have revenues £400 for the shops devs pubs etc.
Example 2
1 new game = £40, sold into the 2nd Market then passed through 9 other people.
1 person has brought in £40 for the shops devs pubs etc.
9 people have brought in revenue for the SHOP ONLY.
As a dev, a BUSINESS what case scenario would you like to see?
philzy85
“As a dev, a BUSINESS what case scenario would you like to see?”
Car manufacturers are in the same boat, wait a minute…… pretty anything that can be bought has this problem.
People buy second hand because they cant afford brand new. Yes the original creator doesnt get a cut of the second hand deal but thats life and it probably wont ever change
Pete_UK
The problem is when companies take new copies of games off the shelves so that they can sell the used copies they have in, as I saw HMV in Bangor do for inFamous when it was released. £35, to buy a used copy of a game?
Regulation, not Taxation (for that’s what this is, effectively – a tax on used games), is the way forward. The game manuals I’ve read all state in the back that you buy a licence for the game, not the game itself; if the companies abusing used sales were not able to resell licences (which is what they’re doing), the problem would be part the way towards being solved. The industry has many options for dealing with this; they’ve chosen this one as it means more money for them without really cutting into the used sales market.
At least my purchasing decision has been made for me here; thank you Sony, you just did yourselves out of £30.
fattyuk
I work in the motor trade lol! An accident repair centre for that matter. any 2nd hand car that comes into my work. Eg BMW 3 series, still brings in money for BMW… For new parts, so BMW after the original sale are still making money from it.
Just like the devs want to make money from 2nd hand buyers for there online services.
Jambo
With the second hand market they do own the game and they can play it but where the online is hosted, the servers etc are not, this is what the pass is for.
MrTwP
Example 1
1 new game = £40
10 new games = £400
10 people have revenues £400 for the shops devs pubs etc.
Example 2
1 new game = £40, sold into the 2nd Market then passed through 9 other people.
1 person has brought in £40 for the shops devs pubs etc.
9 people have brought in revenue for the SHOP ONLY.
As a dev, a BUSINESS what case scenario would you like to see?
This is totally invalid, how many people buy games and sell them on and use the money what they got for the game to go towards a new game?
fattyuk
So if I was to buy new and then sell GAME 1 this goes into the system of going through eg, 10 people 2nd hand.
I then buy Another game brand new and do the same with this, the circle of more pre owned gets bigger and bigger…… Thus what the psn pass is trying to eliminate.
It’s not the revenue of the 1 disk they sell that there worried about, it’s the revenue lost on the 2nd 3rd 4th 5th etcetc person who buys that same 1 disc 2nd hand!
Kaminari
Bingo.
It only proves one thing: you DO pay for PSN every time you buy a new game. There has never been such a thing as a free PSN — and this alone sheds a new light on the gravity of the PSNgate. Sony have never taken seriously the “enhancement” of their premium online services. Not even mentioning that you pay AGAIN for PSN+.
Sony don’t need any XBL-like subscription. They’re actually making more money with their current business model.
fattyuk
Or the boot on the other foot.
I buy 1 game brand new, sell that it goes into the 2nd hand Market, I then buy another pre owned game, sell that and then buy another pre owned game etc etc
Before you know it you’ve got 10 original games just going around the same 10 person Market!
fattyuk
…..with only the retailer making money
MrTwP
But your point is that people who buy pre owned will sell it off and so on. Some people won’t sell it on. what if I buy a game complete it, sell it. Use the money on a new game. The person who I sell it to never sells it on
fattyuk
Theyve still lost there revenue of that person buying you’re copy 2nd hand? Instead of buying brand new, thus only the retailer making money.
MrTwP
Yeah, but they may have never even bought the game at the retail price. They will always lose customers to 2nd hand. They can always re cover money from DLC
fattyuk
DLC=PSN pass
Job done.
Jaffa-the-Cake
You’re all forgetting about every other second hand market. You don’t see film companies complaining about used dvds or blu-rays. Why should the game publishers be any diferent. They set the price of their game and get their cut from that. If that’s not enough then raise the RRP or shutup.
donotfeedthebears1690
but you are forgetting one point the retailler pays for that game they buy back. A game they sell second hand for £35 they might give £20-£25 back to the customer for it meaning for them to make money off it they have to sell it quickly other wise the shelves become full of them and they have to sell them cheap.
companies like activision and EA fund some of the trade in offers that game and gamestation(probably other retaillers to but i never worked in their buying departments) do cause they know that they sell more new releases with trade in offers. maybe the developers should pick a side if they are against trade in stop funding the retaillers to do trade in offers
gazzagb
I want to know what kind of prices Sony will be charging for it, and if the games will have a MP trial period before you have to pay, like Homefront.
e8
An extremely important question. My guess (as not menioned, at least in above statement,) is they’ll want to maximise pass sales & not care if you buy one, only to find out that the mp sucks & you want rid of the game. On the other hand, we have seen a large increase in trials on the psn store of late, so all releases offering a trial is plausible. I personally hardly buy traded, only for games i’m unsure of (brink to be my next.) But i think you have to look at the broder picture, as oppose to saying it’s all good, i only buy new, no harm done.
e8
*broder – broader. re my concern of, buy traded, buy pass, mp rubbish & trade game back. I guess it’s not much different to, buy new , only to find mp sucks & trade. I think if passes weren’t made mandatory, we’d sharp see a price increase in new games &or dlc. ***Thing i don’t get is, yes its the companies servers, but joe bloggs bought the game i’m using, i’m now taking up his space on the server, how is anyone loosing there?***
hazelam
and so the list gets longer.
i’d better make the most of the uncharted beta then, because it turns out i wont be playing the final version online.
Jambo
So you weren’t intending to buy the game new or is this some kind of boycott you are taking up?
hazelam
i have a longstanding policy of never buying any game new that cripples features for preowned users.
i probably would have bought UC3.
but i wont now.
not new at least.
i made the same decision with white knight chronicles 2, i’ve spent dozens of hours on the first one and i absolutely would have bought the sequel new, now i’ll just wait for a preowned copy.
if that means no multiplayer, well, that’s just the price i’ll have to pay.
you could argue that since it’s the online portion and an ongoing service they provide they have a right to do this, and i can see that point.
but my view is if this is supported then at some point we’ll get steam style drm that locks entire games to a single user, there is no defending that.
what i’m doing may not have any impact, but i have to stand by what i believe in.
if you choose to buy anyway, well, that’s up to you, i would urge you not to, and point out what supporting this kind of thing could mean, but ultimately that decision is yours.
my whole opposition to this kind of thing is about the rights of the users, it would be hypocritical of me to decry you for exercising your right to choose.
Jambo
Personally I disagree with you, am siding with the developers who don’t get money for a sale.
fattyuk
Without sounding bitter, but I guess this is what the devs want. Nothing personal Hazelam, but now you’re not buying the game, that eliminates 1 customer who is going to buy the game, then sell it on which then goes to another customer who buys you’re game without any money going to the devs only the shop. And if that person sells it on, and loads of people do this it goes from 10 people to possibly 10x that amount who play the game with no money going to the game makers. Only the shop.
BIGAL-1992
I’m on the devs side. I don’t care about online passes at all.
Jaffa-the-Cake
The devs don’t set the prices you idiots the publishers do. It’s the publishers complaining. The devs have no say in the matter, they just make the game. The rest is for the publisher to decide on (marketing, cut for everyone)
hazelam
you don’t have a very realistic view of how the preowned market works do you fattyuk?
do you honestly think games that enter the preowned market keep recirculating that many times?
that every game will be resold 8 or 9 times?
maybe the really crap ones do, but if they made that poor a product them maybe they don’t deserve the sales.
and i don’t usually resell my games, it’s kind of ironic that it’s pretty much only the new titles i bought that i’ve traded in.
if a games that bad i’m more likely to trade it if i’ve paid more for it.
for cheaper preowned titles i just keep them because it’s not finacially worth it to trade them in.
if we could return games like we used to be able to, the preowned market would be smaller.
Kovacs
Without wanting to sound snide, Hazelam, either stick to single-player only games or start looking for a new hobby.
As I said below, this is the future, and it’s a result of games’ budgets ballooning over the years.
fattyuk
Well said, games these days don’t just cost a few penny’s….. They cost millions!
Stick with the 2nd hand Market and before you know it all you’ll have is download only games at inflated prices or very very poor quality games.
hazelam
movies cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make, yet they don’t restrict our rights over our property.
fattyuk
Not talking about movies though are we?
Jambo
But online services have upkeep costs, admin costs well after release.
At the moment the games industry isn’t doing too well, lots of studios closing down and I am happy to buy new and support them.
fattyuk
Although movies do take a knock with pirating,
And have you ever seen the small print before you watch a film or on the back of cases.
“Not for resale or rental”
Kovacs
And when you rent or go see a movie the studio gets its cut. Buying preowned means the studio doesn’t.
It’s apples and oranges.
fattyuk
Well said jambo.
If everyone lived by the 2nd hand Market there would be NO gaming trade on this planet! As publishers would only have to print 100 copies of there game and let them sink into the 2nd hand Market, thus the only people making money is the shop! which equals the devs closing down no more Games and lost jobs
hazelam
no the studios don’t get a cut when you buy preowned, but they’re not violating our rights to try and get a cut.
not yet at least.
despite movies costing a whole hell of a lot more to make than games.
Jambo
So our rights are to use a service they are providing that we haven’t paid them for?
Kovacs
Of course, you can buy a DVD second hand and the (movie studio) gets naught. Then again, it doesn’t cost the studio anything to support your viewing pleasure of this preowned movie.
Just like game studios are not demanding a slice of a preowned sale. They are asking that you’ve paid for the privilege to use their online services, however.
Listen, I’m not trying to convince you of the logic behind why this is happening. You’re against it, and that’s cool.
All I’m saying is, if you really are going to stick to your guns and not buy games that support a Pass system, you’re going to soon have very little to play.
The majority of studios are looking into this in order to offset their considerable costs. It’s only going to become more prevalent the further along we go.
I suppose my point is: accept why it’s happening and support the people who make games or stick to your guns and take up a sport or something because gaming is about to become a very barren experience for you.
:(
hazelam
and lock all products to a single user forever, or give the creator full control over each individual copy forever and you destroy libraries, art galleries, and you’ll decimate numerous charities when their shops have to close because they have nothing to sell any more.
fattyuk
“no the studios don’t get a cut when you buy preowned”
Exactly! If studios don’t get a cut and make money then guess what…. They go bust. And if people like me who always buy new is going to help studios stay in business then I’m gonna stick with it!
Jambo
Everyone is allowed their own opinions so I shall respect yours, my only concern for you is in a few years time when gaming goes entirely digital and there will be no physical copies to buy.
fattyuk
Each to there own opinion and I respects that. But Hazelam you’ve gone abit off topic now, were talking about games, not movies,are galleries, libraries and errrmmm dunno where it come from but charity shops??
hazelam
yes, i asid, there is a case for this with the online portion because they’re providing a service, though many games that use this kind of thing, ea’s especially, are run peer to peer, but that’s beside the point.
yeah, it’s an ongoing service.
it’s not really this in itself that bothers me, i don’t play a lot of games online anyway.
no, what really bothers me is that this is a stepping stone to full on steam style drm.
and that, is absolutely wrong, and i believe illegal.
if or when that happens at least i’ll be able to say “i made my non violent stand against it”.
much preferable in my mind to “i let this happen”
there’s a saying, “all that’s needed for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing”
melodramatic? hell yeah. ^_^.
all propaganda should be right?
like the publishers claims that piracy funds terrorism and organized crime.
funny how that happens when most piracy is done through torrents these days.
maybe the terrorist have cornered the market on blank dvds. o_O
Kovacs
You’re not seeing my point. There is a massive difference between a PRODUCT and a SERVICE.
They aren’t stopping you from selling the PRODUCT to someone else. They are requesting you pay THEM to participate with the SERVICE element of their product.
They provide the service so they decide the fee. For people who buy the game new, the fee has been deemed paid. For people who buy the game preowned, it’s not, but they have the option of paying to use the service element anyway.
You have to remember that the service element incurs an ongoing cost to the studio. All your examples from libraries to charity shops are all product-only based. So, I’m sorry, but it’s not comparative.
Games with online components are different because of the service cost. And the provider of the service is entitled to charge whatever they want for it. The cost is baked into a NEW sale. In other words: want to play on OUR service, thank you, you have paid for the right, please proceed.
For a preowned game the studio has the right to say: “Well, you bought our product for a cut-down price, and, as it’s digital – unlike a second-hand car, say – it doesn’t depreciate so it’s exactly the same as a new copy. Absolutely no difference. Well, we’d like to have gotten our due for what you’re about to enjoy. We didn’t. Fine. That’s the preowned market and that fuels the sale of NEW games (a WHOLE different debate). However, see this here? The servers? The ones we’re paying engineers to maintain, and patch, and support, and keep up, and diagnose, and repair, and defrag, and migrate data from and a whole bunch of other stuff? We reserve the right to ask that whomever is using that service has paid US for it. So buy a pass. Or GTFO.”
It’s that simple. Really. This is not rocket surgery but, like I said, I don’t think I’m going to convince you of this reasoning; why they’re really doing this. So, whatever. Stick to your principles. That’s your right. I support that. Be pissed off that studios are doing this. Also your right. I support that, too.
I’ll be over here playing Resistance 3.
hazelam
they’re all related.
want to see how?
this explains it far better than i can.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/08/first-sale-why-it-matters-why-were-fighting-it
“The “first sale” doctrine expresses one of the most important limitations on the reach of copyright law. The idea, set out in Section 109 of the Copyright Act, is simple: once you’ve acquired a lawfully-made CD or book or DVD, you can lend, sell, or give it away without having to get permission from the copyright owner. In simpler terms, “you bought it, you own it” (and because first sale also applies to gifts, “they gave it to you, you own it” is also true).
Seems obvious, right? After all, without the “first sale” doctrine, libraries would be illegal, as would used bookstores, used record stores, and video rental shops (and their modern variants, like LaLa and other CD-swapping communities).
But the copyright industries have never liked first sale, since it creates competition for their titles (you could borrow it from a friend, pick it up at a library, or buy it from a used book seller on Amazon).
It also reduces their ability to impose restrictions on how you use the work after it is sold. For example, at the turn of the 20th century, book publishers tried to impose a minimum resale price on books by putting a notice in every copy. In the 1930s, record labels put “private use only, not for broadcast” notices on records in an attempt to block radio stations from playing their records without additional payment. In the 1980s, movie studios tried the same thing with video cassettes, trying to control the video rental business. Congress, the courts, and free markets have consistently rejected these efforts to undermine the first sale principle.”
fattyuk
“if or when that happens at least i’ll be able to say “i made my non violent stand against it”.
and the devs will be happy as they’ve achieved there goal of keeping there business in well erm business!
If the world lived on copied and pirated movies, there would be no movies….. It’s the people that buy new and go to the cinema that keep them in business.
Kovacs
I just want to say that I fully respect and admire your willingness to stand by your beliefs. As someone who works in the gaming industry and hence probably sees things from a different perspective I don’t necessarily agree with your stance, but I wholeheartedly support your right to follow it.
Kudos.
hazelam
and how are preowned sales, anything at all like piracy?
Pete_UK
You make some good points Kovacs, but they’re undermined by the fact other developers manage to provide the online aspect of their games without this charge on used games with no problems whatsoever. If publishers want to control the MP aspect of their games they should be prepared to pay the price; it is easier and cheaper to open up the MP system so that people can run it themselves, eg. any game that has independent dedicated servers. The only reason to lockout MP like this is to force people further into the cyclical upgrade pattern – EA Sports are a prime example here.
Kovacs
Oh dear. You mean, you haven’t seen this?
http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2011/04/19/opinion-pre-owned-is-piracy/
(You’re going to blow a GASKET!)
;)
Kovacs
” … the fact other developers manage to provide the online aspect of their games without this charge on used games with no problems whatsoever.”
I’d disagree with that. I point toward the ever-worrying fact that studios are shutting down regularly which suggests that:
a) Game budgets have spiralled out of control
and hence
b) Developers not getting paid to support the service aspect of MP due to the preowned market contributes somewhat to their demise.
The other option is that developers just say: “Right, it costs too much to provide an online element. No MP at all.”
I’m assuming no one wants that.
fattyuk
As soon as glanced over the words “1930s” and “1980s”….. I thought right I’m grabing my coat and I’m off…… What on earth they could have anything to do with the games industry in the 2000s is completely past me!
Kovacs
Re: your points on first sale.
Books, DVDs, CDs = products
Games with MP = product + service.
So it’s not the same. Not in the slightest. That’s my point. That’s it. I’m done.
=)
fattyuk
Nail in the coffin kovacs!
Been a nice discussion
Good night all!!
Pete_UK
I see where you’re coming from. I think the issue with game budgets and closing studios though is more to do with the publishers than anything else (‘milking’ franchises); I doubt the used games market is wholly responsible but it’s got to be a contributing factor. I’d put the most blame on the market itself; there’s demand, so the publishers force their devs to supply and where a break might give them the time to come up with new ideas, they’re not getting it – thus you end up with a string of similar games with the obvious improvements (FIFA, DiRT), but nothing really ‘new’ to make it stand out, and it’s the stand-out games that make the money that keep developers going.
I still say though that they should just force a tax on used sales for the retailer; it’d be a lot fairer on everyone.
hazelam
“I’d disagree with that. I point toward the ever-worrying fact that studios are shutting down regularly which suggests that:
a) Game budgets have spiralled out of control
and hence
b) Developers not getting paid to support the service aspect of MP due to the preowned market contributes somewhat to their demise.
The other option is that developers just say: “Right, it costs too much to provide an online element. No MP at all.”
I’m assuming no one wants that.”
i’m glad you brought that up actually kovacs, it reminded me of something.
remember that all the preowned games have already been bought and paid for right.
given that fact it’s fair to say that game’s presence online has been paid for.
wouldn’t you agree with that?
so when the owner trades that game in, the publishers always neglect to mention that it’s usually traded to buy a new game, anyway, when that user trades their game in, and somebody else buys it, that’s still the same copy that had its presence in that online space paid for.
but like i said, my problem is the step they’ll take if this is allowed to pass, excuse the pun, unopposed.
and there is no defence for that
and claiming studios close down because of preowned titles is ridiculous.
they close because their games don’t sell well enough.
not because only a few people bought it and everybody else was waiting for their turn with one of the few copies that did sell.
or they close because they were too expensive.
if budgets are spiralling out of control, the problem is at their end.
maybe they were mismanaged, maybe they put out a poor product, or maybe, just maybe, they were really unlucky, they did everything right but everything went wrong.
but that’s business, we’re not here to subsidise failure.
look at minecraft, you dont have to spend a couple of dozen million to make a hit game.
if they’re wasting money paying adulterous balding halfwit shrek lookalikes, millions to appear on their covers then they’re the ones to blame, not the users.
that was a dig at ea by the way.
hazelam
“Re: your points on first sale.
Books, DVDs, CDs = products
Games with MP = product + service.
So it’s not the same. Not in the slightest. That’s my point. That’s it. I’m done.
=)
”
and i think i mentioned a couple of times i can see the point for those who argue that they have a right to do this
and my point is that this is about where they will take this policy next if this is not challenged.
not this in and of itself.
but that point seems to have been missed.
and if we do reach that point, then what i’m saying about first sale is absolutely appropriate.
anyway, i too need to go to bed, but i doubt this is the last time this subject will be coming up.
lastly, sorry fatty, i know you wanted to see a fight and us swearing at each other and calling each other names and such, and we didn’t.
i feel like we let you down, maybe next time eh?
BIGAL-1992
@hazel I know fatty hasn’t been the best behaved on this site, but thatn was a bit below the belt, considering the comments he’s made in other post on this story.
fattyuk
Far from it Hazelam I’ve been polite and respected anyone’s comments on this thread.
Paranoimia
“so when the owner trades that game in, the publishers always neglect to mention that it’s usually traded to buy a new game, anyway, when that user trades their game in, and somebody else buys it, that’s still the same copy that had its presence in that online space paid for.”
But by that same token, the game has also already been paid for. So what gives the retailer the right to re-sell it? How is it fair that a retailer can re-sell the game to a new owner, but the developer can’t re-sell the online service? This argument just does not work.
There is no way that a retailer should be able to repeatedly profit from a single copy of a game and not give any of that to the developer. Especially when, quite often, good condition pre-owned games are on the shelves for little more than pennies less than a new copy.
If you want to get angry over these pass schemes, then get angry at the right people – the retailers. They could probably go a long way to alleviating the issue by volunteering a percentage of their pre-owned profits back to the industry.
These companies need a license to re-sell the games, so if these pass schemes don’t have the desired effect, the next step will be either the re-writing of those license agreements to enforce ‘donations’ from retailer preowned profits, or the refusal of resale licenses altogether.
e8
Been a long time since i finished a game(have too many.) I just finished gtaIV this wk(lol i know.) When the credits came up, i was expecting a team of movie proportions behind it, the amount of staff, was bigger than most movies, no question. It made the millions the game generated, seem not so staggering & more of, look how well the game was received, as oppose to, look how much money they’ve made.
KeRaSh
What about the fact that when someone buys a pre-owned game it’s still only one person using the online service at any given time? How does it matter to the dev if the original buyer is playing online or if it is someone else who bought the game pre-owned? The single “licence” to use the online services has been paid for and only one person is making use of it.
I usually buy my games new but that’s just because I think it’s easier. I don’t have to worry about the condition of the game (I rarely resell a game so I’d rather have a good looking case than a damaged one rotting in my appartment…).
hazelam
“But by that same token, the game has also already been paid for. So what gives the retailer the right to re-sell it? How is it fair that a retailer can re-sell the game to a new owner, but the developer can’t re-sell the online service? This argument just does not work.
There is no way that a retailer should be able to repeatedly profit from a single copy of a game and not give any of that to the developer. Especially when, quite often, good condition pre-owned games are on the shelves for little more than pennies less than a new copy.”
there are some valid points there.
i’ll answer your first question, what gives them the right to resell the game?
that’s simple, buying the game off the whoever owned it before gives them the right, because then it becomes their property and they can resell it or give it away if they choose, but being a business they’ll probably decide to sell it.
i never said they can’t resell the online portion, i’ve stated many times that i can see the case for them doing this.
although the fact that the online presence of that game has been paid for weakens that argument slightly.
i refuse to support it however because i believe if nobody questions it they will take the next step and we’ll see totalitarian drm like we have on the pc.
and that kind of thing is a clear violation of our rights.
if i didn’t think that these passes were just a stepping stone on the path to steam style drm then this wouldn’t bother me, but anybody can see that’s where the publishers want to head.
just look at the state of the pc market.
that is the way i see things going, but not fir the first time, i hop i’m wrong.
as for the statement that “There is no way that a retailer should be able to repeatedly profit from a single copy of a game and not give any of that to the developer”
from a legal standpoint, that totally incorrect.
the publishers could work out some sort of deal for a cut, but the store are under no legal obligation to share any profits from preowned sales with the publishers.
no other industry gets that, why should gaming be special?
as for the price of preowned games, that’s an issue that relates to the relationship between the retailer and the consumer, and has little to nothing to do with the publisher.
i would refuse to support that as well, i’d never buy new preowned just to save a couple of quid.
most of the preowned titles i buy are months old, and the rest years.
getting new games for a few quid less is not why i support the preowned market, it’s so people can still experience older titles, so that games one person no longer plays can be played by somebody new.
games are meant to be played, i will oppose anything designed to prevent that from happening.
Phizzy
Hazelam, your slippery slope argument about DRM is fallacious. That is all.
hazelam
fallacious?
you know for certain they don’t want to destroy all preowned sales?
what exactly do you base that on?
the fact they’ve made this move against the preowned market gives more weight to my view than yours i have to say.
i know i’m biased but still that should be clear to anybody
hazelam
does anybody care to address my point about that any preowned copy’s access to the service being paid for when it was bought new?
that even if the game is sold a dozen times, a hundred, or even a thousand, there is still only ever one copy using the service at once.
though no game will be traded that many times, i doubt any get traded more than a couple of times, maybe a few truly terrible games might reach a dozen trades.
this is a side issue to the drm thing, and is not directly related.
Death_In_Flamez
Its a mixed bag of opinions really. I guess the best I answer I can give is what I am doing with Dirt 3. If brand new, it is less than a trade-in AND the price of the pass then I’ll get it new, and vice-versa. Just means I’ll be using the store more I guess
teflon
Oh, fantastic…
Ah well, this is the way the industry is heading, so I guess it was only a matter of time before this happened.
Kovacs
As a proponent to buying games new so the actual makers of the games see at least a portion of the coin, I support this.
Gaming is moving towards a service-based model. I understand why some people will dislike this (it means games just got more expensive for some people) but it’s the future.
hazelam
what and they don’t with the preowned market existing?
when did their fair share not become enough?
i have to dispute it when somebody says the industry is losing money from used game sales.
every used game sold, was bought, they got their rightful recompense when the original owner bought it.
that copy is now the property of that owner.
why should the publisher have any claim to that person’s property?
if making these games is costing them too much money they need to look inwards at their business practices.
it’s hardly logical to blame the customer if you’re spending too much making your product.
Kovacs
“that copy is now the property of that owner.”
Exactly. And the servers are THEIR property, and they have the right to decide who gets to go on them. And in their CRAZY minds, they only want people to access THEIR PROPERTY who have paid THEM for the right.
This is a vacuous argument. You have your opinion and I have mine. The only difference is that, with my argument, I get to keep playing great games for the rest of my life. With your argument, you don’t.
Is there a winner here? I’ll let you decide.
hazelam
oh i get to play the games, single player only, and i have to wait a bit, sometimes a lot, but much cheaper.
like i said, this in itself isn’t the issue, but what it could lead to.
that being the totalitarian drm that locks the whole game to a single user.
i will only consider myself to have won if i can prevent that kind of thing happening.
right now i’m winning.
they’re only locking off the multiplayer.
when they lock off whole games, then i’ll have failed.
Kovacs
You seem to have this dystopian view that DRM is going to increase. If anything, I think DRM is getting less prevalent. Capcom not included. There have been many cases of companies turning off intrusive DRM because it just hinders the experience and doesn’t actually prevent piracy.
I don’t want to see a DRM-heavy gaming world either. I just would like to see people who work incredibly hard get paid for it by the people who enjoy their efforts.
fattyuk
And you’re fighting for that??? Instead of enjoying and respecting the nature of you’re hobby??
Pete_UK
FattyUK; I miss the times when I could pick a game up from anywhere, and be safe in the knowledge it’s the full game. You talk of enjoying and respecting the nature of the hobby; where’s the developers / publishers respect for the industry that put them where they are in the first place?
fattyuk
“FattyUK; I miss the times when I could pick a game up from anywhere, and be safe in the knowledge it’s the full game”
Hhhmmmmmmm ok?? maybe just try buying new from a shop might help?
Pete_UK
You’re not a retro gamer, are you FattyUK? Try responding to my rebuttal of your comment; just ridiculing it with no basis is a deflectionary tactic usually used by people who can’t come up with anything better.
fattyuk
Ok I apologise, I don’t have a clue what you’re original comment ment!??
What games can’t you go into a shop and buy and trust that you’re getting the full game?
hazelam
i don’t know if i’d call it dystopian.
cynical, possibly, realistic, maybe.
just look at what’s happening with the pc market.
ubisoft, ea and capcom.
just three big names accused of using overly restrictive drm recently.
and sony recently released a game that locks a disc to a single account.
tell me i’m wrong in my predictions, please tell me i’m wrong.
freezebug2
Great idea, there are some games that I dont want to play online but do enjoy the single player story, so a used sale would suit me just fine but the majority of games that I do want to play online I always buy new anyway.
scavenga
I won’t be playing any new games online, then – I’d rather keep the code and trade in for higher value (as I’m dependent on trade ins to be able to buy more than 3 games a year).
KeRaSh
How would the shop know that you haven’t used the code already? In order to verify it they would have to use the code and invalidate it in the process. It seems that any game with this kind of code will lose a chunk of it’s resale value no matter what you did with the code.
scavenga
They would take my word for it, as I am a recurring customer.
Also, each game traded in is registered with name and address, so if someone bought a game with a used code, the previous owner would probably be held accountable for the extra costs.
KeRaSh
This might not be the case for every small game store out there. Also, I’m not sure if you could be held accountable for a non functioning code. They couldn’t charge you any money back and sometimes it might even be a problem with the key itself. They would simply deny to buy back games from you in the future.
scavenga
I see your point – but any which way, I won’t play online, and rather save the code as I currently benefit from doing so.
KeRaSh
I would do the same thing if I was in your position, since I usually don’t care for the online multiplayer mode either.