[Edit] Sony Plans to Make Used-Game Buyers Purchase Online Functionality

[Irridium]

What the hell makes games so damn special?

Why isn't Hollywood complaining about used DVD sales? Why isn't the music industry complaining about used CD sales(or, why didn't they when people still bought CD's)?

It takes money to keep dedicated online servers up, which is the only thing people who buy used games from now on will miss (People with used games won't be able to access the online capabilities).

If you think for a while you'll realize that keeping dedicated servers up for a fairly long period of time (years, even) for the company is really expensive when they don't get income; which is basicaly what re-sold stuff takes away from the makers.

The Movie and the Music industry suffers less from this situation because the "price" required to set up their products (disc players, TVs, Radios) is covered by the users themselves.

Then perhaps it'd be a good idea to not focus so much on the multiplayer side of things if it's such a financial burden. And besides, the servers will go down no matter what, since sales will drop over time no matter what.

If you want to have a multiplayer component but not pay so much for it, do what PC games have been doing for decades, let the gamers make and run the servers. That way you don't have to spend so much maintaining them

But of course that won't happen, since Sony/MS want to control everything. Though Sony seems to be the more lenient. Point is, there are better ways to go about this instead of just trying to kill the used market.

 

[NickCaligo42]

So, immediately following the massive PR debacle with the Playstation Store hack and a three-week period with the online features basically turned off for every game, they bring this up.

Can't say I'm impressed. I wasn't all that affected by their shutdown, really I don't care about online features, but... yeah, this looks pretty freaking stupid. You shut down your service for three weeks and then immediately followed up with a draconian control system for the service customers don't think you can reliably keep running. Good work.

 

[Koroviev]

Can't blame them, developers and publishers do need there money, not like gamestop or stores like it are willing to give any of what they make back to them...

Gamestop doesn't owe the developers or the publishers anything. It simply serves as a medium between consumers. Do consumers receive as much in trade-ins as they would were they selling on their own? No, of course not. Gamestop is rendering them a service by giving them quick credit where they might have had to wait longer to sell their games. When Gamestop does sell the games, it is not unduly taking money away from game companies. A used item of any kind was new at some point. When that item is first sold, the companies make their money. That is the only time they should make money, as per the First-Sale doctrine. Once the item is sold, it is the property of the consumer. If the consumer decides to sell the item, whether to a company such as Gamestop or to another individual, then that person relinquishes his ownership of the item in question.

 

[Baneat]

Really, I don't mind that at all. I usually purchase all my games new. Why should someplace like gamestop get the money from a game instead of the people who made it? If companies don't make money on games, they wont make games, its as simple as that. I gladly pay the extra five bucks for a new game because I'd rather support the industry than a game store.

If gamestop make no money, they just disappear. Maybe we can cut them out, but at this point they're still needed to sell games to the masses, especially those not using steam. New games don't return the same profit for them

 

[keideki]

After the PSN outage Sony has been on thin ice... I do not think this is the best way to walk on thin ice (i.e. stomping on the hopes and dreams of gamers who can't or don't want to pay full price for a game)

 

[dfphetteplace]

Really, I don't mind that at all. I usually purchase all my games new. Why should someplace like gamestop get the money from a game instead of the people who made it? If companies don't make money on games, they wont make games, its as simple as that. I gladly pay the extra five bucks for a new game because I'd rather support the industry than a game store.

Because they already got paid for that copy.

 

[Atheist.]

Really, I don't mind that at all. I usually purchase all my games new. Why should someplace like gamestop get the money from a game instead of the people who made it? If companies don't make money on games, they wont make games, its as simple as that. I gladly pay the extra five bucks for a new game because I'd rather support the industry than a game store.

If there's used copies, someone bought it new at some point.

That said, I buy all my games new unless there's a big difference in price (like Quake 4 $30 new, about $5 used, fuck that).

I don't think that's his point. It's like ten people trying to get into the movie theater with one ticket. Sure someone paid the company, but not all of the consumers did. Plus with all of the EULA's going around, we apparently don't own the game, we're simply licensing it. Which is complete bullshit.

I'm at odds on this conflict. I like to support the companies that produce quality things, but when they stomp on consumer rights, it makes me care less and less about them. Geohotz/PS3, and the 3DS piss all over our rights and expect us to then not screw them over? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

 

[bootz]

I feel bad for the people who buy used and don't realize they don't get the whole game.

 

[Koroviev]

Really, I don't mind that at all. I usually purchase all my games new. Why should someplace like gamestop get the money from a game instead of the people who made it? If companies don't make money on games, they wont make games, its as simple as that. I gladly pay the extra five bucks for a new game because I'd rather support the industry than a game store.

If there's used copies, someone bought it new at some point.

That said, I buy all my games new unless there's a big difference in price (like Quake 4 $30 new, about $5 used, fuck that).

I don't think that's his point. It's like ten people trying to get into the movie theater with one ticket. Sure someone paid the company, but not all of the consumers did. Plus with all of the EULA's going around, we apparently don't own the game, we're simply licensing it. Which is complete bullshit.

I'm at odds on this conflict. I like to support the companies that produce quality things, but when they stomp on consumer rights, it makes me care less and less about them. Geohotz/PS3, and the 3DS piss all over our rights and expect us to then not screw them over? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

With respect to a movie ticket, the buyer is paying for a specific showing. If said buyer attends the showing using a ticket, then that precludes another person using it.

 

[Atheist.]

Really, I don't mind that at all. I usually purchase all my games new. Why should someplace like gamestop get the money from a game instead of the people who made it? If companies don't make money on games, they wont make games, its as simple as that. I gladly pay the extra five bucks for a new game because I'd rather support the industry than a game store.

If there's used copies, someone bought it new at some point.

That said, I buy all my games new unless there's a big difference in price (like Quake 4 $30 new, about $5 used, fuck that).

I don't think that's his point. It's like ten people trying to get into the movie theater with one ticket. Sure someone paid the company, but not all of the consumers did. Plus with all of the EULA's going around, we apparently don't own the game, we're simply licensing it. Which is complete bullshit.

I'm at odds on this conflict. I like to support the companies that produce quality things, but when they stomp on consumer rights, it makes me care less and less about them. Geohotz/PS3, and the 3DS piss all over our rights and expect us to then not screw them over? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

With respect to a movie ticket, the buyer is paying for a specific showing. If said buyer attends the showing using a ticket, then that precludes another person using it.

That's kind of my point. I'm pretty sure this is how game companies feel. They're selling you a personal license, or ticket, to play their game. They believe they're selling a ticket for personal use, and only that. I'm not saying this is right, just that it is what I am observing.

 

[Koroviev]

Really, I don't mind that at all. I usually purchase all my games new. Why should someplace like gamestop get the money from a game instead of the people who made it? If companies don't make money on games, they wont make games, its as simple as that. I gladly pay the extra five bucks for a new game because I'd rather support the industry than a game store.

If there's used copies, someone bought it new at some point.

That said, I buy all my games new unless there's a big difference in price (like Quake 4 $30 new, about $5 used, fuck that).

I don't think that's his point. It's like ten people trying to get into the movie theater with one ticket. Sure someone paid the company, but not all of the consumers did. Plus with all of the EULA's going around, we apparently don't own the game, we're simply licensing it. Which is complete bullshit.

I'm at odds on this conflict. I like to support the companies that produce quality things, but when they stomp on consumer rights, it makes me care less and less about them. Geohotz/PS3, and the 3DS piss all over our rights and expect us to then not screw them over? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

With respect to a movie ticket, the buyer is paying for a specific showing. If said buyer attends the showing using a ticket, then that precludes another person using it.

That's kind of my point. I'm pretty sure this is how game companies feel. They're selling you a personal license, or ticket, to play their game. They believe they're selling a ticket for personal use, and only that. I'm not saying this is right, just that it is what I am observing.

I think game companies are striving for something more akin to iTunes, in that case.

 

[Giantpanda602]

Just spend the extra 10$ and support the company.

 

[Mallefunction]

The only problem I have with this is when it comes to sharing games with friends. Outside of that, I think it's a fine idea. Most used games I get for much cheaper than just $5 off the original tag price so if I really wanted to pay for multiplayer, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch.

And it works with the multiplayer because as others have said, servers aren't cheap to operate.

I would get pissed if they fucked around with the single player campaign though. If they gave codes for that, I would stop buying altogether. I have good games, some that I'd paid full price for, but the majority of them I bought used in bargain bins. No company has the right to FORCE me to buy something new just so I can enjoy the the damn thing.

 

[Mouse_Crouse]

Why should someplace like gamestop get the money from a game instead of the people who made it? If companies don't make money on games, they wont make games, its as simple as that. I gladly pay the extra five bucks for a new game because I'd rather support the industry than a game store.

I never understood this thought. The developers have gotten money for EVERY used game in a game store. They all had to be purchased new the first time. What I don't get is why they should get paid for the same game more then once.

 

[-Dragmire-]

The thing is they've already made their fair share on that game when it was sold new. They're no more entitled to profits from used games than Ford or Honda are the profits of used car sales.

Your car analogy doesn't work, games and cars are not the same.
Developers pay to keep servers running for multiplayer, cars require no extra monetary investment from the retailer after they are sold.

For a more accurate comparison, why do I have to both buy WoW, and pay a monthly membership.
Because they are paying to keep the servers up. (and it helps fund them to make better stuff)

Does your opinion change when there is no online aspect to the game for the developers to support?

For example used ps2 games that have no online capabilities.

edit: I should point out I realise that a game with no online capabilities would have no way to pay the developer for the used sale, it's more the antagonistic view of any used sales I'm calling into question. I do agree that developers need cash from any game that needs their servers (i.e. multiplayer).

 

[FalloutJack]

They can't make me do anything.

 

[ProjectTrinity]

Ah, that just means less Team ICO players can stop giving them the shaft.

Sorry for not siding with the gamer's wallet, but devs have wallets, too. ' -'

 

[Liudeius]

Does your opinion change when there is no online aspect to the game for the developers to support?

For example used ps2 games that have no online capabilities.

edit: I should point out I realise that a game with no online capabilities would have no way to pay the developer for the used sale, it's more the antagonistic view of any used sales I'm calling into question. I do agree that developers need cash from any game that needs their servers (i.e. multiplayer).

Well my opinion is specifically about games with the upcoming PSN pass and therefore only about games with online capabilities.

While I still prefer new games over used games, due to previously mentioned reasons, I would definitely be against a second fee charged by the company for LAN or single player features when purchased used. The non-online aspect of a game is your property once you buy it, and you have the right to do with it as you see fit, including selling it to someone else (so long as you do not infringe on copyrights).