Sony online pass?

This is old news isn't it? Didn't we already discuss this? Don't bother switching to Microsoft, it's the way most developers are going these days, screwing their customers over to add even more money to their already insane bank balances. EA have done it for years, Ubisoft are going to do it, so are Warners Brothers Studios, Sony Entertainment games are just another in a long line of uber rich companies trying to squeeze more money out of us. It won't work on me, I've already not bought some used games I had my eye on as soon as I saw the EA logo, no way I'm paying for a game, than paying for the privilege of playing it online. They won't be earning more money from me, I'll just have to buy less games now.

But that's my opinion, for the opposite view speak to monsly, he's in favour of paying more money than before for no more content than before.

 

You must not have been around in June when I linked this video from gunns4hire:

He uploaded this July 6th.

 

EA and company must really be feeling the pinch from you not buying secondhand versions of their games. What an asstute observation.

And paying more for less? How's that work? New stuff is still the same. As I explained before, these kind of moves are likely to force grubby secondhand rip-off game store prices down unless their consumers are really dumb. I think it's great.

 

Another reason why PC rocks and consoles socks.

 

I hope you're right but I didn't see second hand EA games drop in price after the inclusion on the online pass, did you? I bet a second hand version of Uncharted 3 will go for the average price of a second hand game rather than a cut price.

 

I am still of the opinion on this that it IS going to hurt the end user at the moment. I don't see GAME/Gamestation dropping prices on second hand games by £7-£10 to cover for the online pass, on some second hand games that already cost less than £10 they would actually have to give them away for free.

If the pass was £3 or £4 then I probably wouldn't mind but at the moment I don't like it.

I saw someone in GAME a few weeks ago pick up a new copy of Zumba for the Wii. When paying they asked her IF she wanted a second hand copy and when they looked it was actually £5 more than new. GAME don't have a clue what they are doing half the time and I expect some people WILL end up paying more when they have purchased the online pass than if they purchased the entire game new. GAME/Gamestation seem to sell second hand games for as little as £3 less than new at times and this will cost the user more if not changed and I don't think they will change because they are making too much money.

Even if they do change the user will still lose out as the cost will be passed onto us. You think GAME will take £7 off the second price without giving you £10 less for it when you sell or trade it in? So you lose £10 on your trade in and then have to pay £7 for the pass.

 

yeah your lucky to find ANY second hand PC games... and if you do good luck getting them on line in any case, your best chance is MMO's, but it's SUPPOSED to be illegal.

 

Yes, I think publishers are counting on that. They want to make it so that it's a better deal for the consumer to buy their game new rather than second hand. They don't want games to be purchased second hand at all, as they get nothing for that and it leads to considerable lost retail sales. I typically take an anti-corporate stance on most issues, but I have to admit that I'd be furious if I funded a multi-million dollar video game project only to see a substantial proportion of sales siphoned off by a degenerate second-hand operation selling it for $5 to $10 less. GameStop/ GAME/ Gamestation and the like created NOTHING in the development process, nor do they contribute anything to creating and maintaining the online services, yet they are stealing massive amounts of sales. The other side that is irritating is that companies will just keep everything they can get their hands on rather than passing on financial success in lower prices, so I'm somewhat apathetic about the practice currently.

 

Haven't PC games had single use serial codes for a long time now? I remember Half Life having a code which you needed to play. Heaven forbid you got a second hand copy with a used code.

Nowadays it seems PC games are heading for internet authentication. Doesn't Diablo 3 require you to be connected all the time in order to play?

 

Not single use codes. You just needed the code to install the game back then. Of course, people would crack games and use serial generators eventually, so they made it so you need valid codes to play them online. As long as you had a valid game code, then you're fine.

Now, even if you are legit, drm is still nagging at you. Securom protected games limit the number of installs (activations) you can do. It has also been known to break games. This is pretty much the equivalent of Sony online pass for PC.

 

Digital distribution allows most PC games to go on sale for near used prices anyway. Steam will do a 50% off sale at the drop of a hat.

 

Exactly. They just want us to pay more. Screw the consumer, we need moar monnies!

 

I'm sure Game and their ilk will reduce prices accordingly. From what you say, it seems they just deeply care about their customers and saving them money in the face of greedy games companies. It's not like their secondhand market is based on ripping off publishers by cutting them out of the system completely.

 

I think it just boils down to whether or not you want the price of game to increase or not, you seem to be all for it.

 

That's not it at all. You seem to be incapable of understanding the wider issues at play in this. This won't cost people buying new anymore cash. The only thing it targets is the huge market certain game stores have created in secondhand games. It's probably been spurred on by the supermarkets begging to explore this area. Quite why you think these stores are more entitled to make money off games than the publishers and developers seems bizarre to me.

 

Game are not going to to drop the price of second hand game by £7 when some second hand games only cost £10 as it is. If they do drop the price they will pass this onto the customer by giving them £7+ less for trading in or selling games.

I don't understand where your faith in GAME/Gamestation to drop the prices of second hand games to compensate comes from considering they already rip people off for fun.

 

I've got no time for Game/Gamestation. It's just that if they're so on our sides as consumers - as arma's pointed out many a time - then I'm sure they'll be right with us, if this becomes a more common practice.

I think pricing will need to be affected by these changes. I know a lot of Game's regular customers are dumb but even they could cotton on to the fact the £2 saving on 2nd hand stuff isn't worth it anymore. In effect, this will see extra income for game companies and less money for the stores. That's more fair than the current arrangement to my mind.

 

I don't have a problem with this in principle its just that I don't see GAME/Gamestation cutting £7 off of second hand game prices.

They already pay peanuts for peoples games when they trade them in but to recoup profits this will also mean that a game that might have gotten you £10 will end up only getting you £3 as they have to take £7 off the price too.

This is going to hurt the people that can't afford to buy new and even more so have to trade in games to get new ones or second hand ones.

For example say you traded in 2 games for £10 each and picked up Uncharted 3 for £30 second hand, this means you only have to pay £10 out of your pocket. Now imagine GAME took £7 off the trade in price to cover a loss on sales so that £3 each now. Just for one moment lets pretend GAME do take £7 off the price of second hand games to cover the cost of the pass, that makes Uncharted 3 £23. This means that you now have to pay £20 because you lost so much on your trade in. GAME are not going to give you the same money for games when they have to give up £7 on each of them to cover the online pass cost.