http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVjacq9xTOc
Hopempeople won`t pay.
Wonder if I have to pay for BO since I`m using another PS3 now then I was when I played that.
If I do, I won`t and it won`t bother me that I can`t play BO since it`s shit :P
Printable View
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVjacq9xTOc
Hopempeople won`t pay.
Wonder if I have to pay for BO since I`m using another PS3 now then I was when I played that.
If I do, I won`t and it won`t bother me that I can`t play BO since it`s shit :P
1) It's for PS3-published titles. BO it's a property of Activision.
2) It works the same as the EA and THQ passes.
3) You can play in your second PS3 because the pass is account-tied. (But it means your friends can't play online in your own PS3).
So yeah, this is not an issue....just how the pass is locked per account so you are all forced to share the same account.
Just buy all your games new and you have no issues. We already discussed this in my Crapcom thread, unless anyone is up for Round 2?
Well, lets just hope not many developers choose to jump on this bandwagon. This is just stupid.
EDIT: @Shinichi No, it's most definitely still and issue. As I said in a similar thread, if you own the disc you should have full access to the content on the disc. So yes, it is a major issue.
You know I smell a fake since the only image I've seen is from a resistance 3 bundle pack and the actual package for the game itself doesn't have that label on it.
@Shinichi
1. k
2. k
3. k
But Sony said when they announced PSN that it would NEVER cost anything, so that was a lie.
It`s not a good way to get back the cash they lost from the hacking since alot of people will get pissed and switch to Xbox.
If Activision jumps on it then I won`t be getting MW3 at all, was planing on getting it used.
Activision are such greedy bastards so they`ll jump on it.
EA will probably too, they`re most greedy :P
---------- Post added at 09:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 PM ----------
It`s not fakeQuote:
Originally Posted by demonix
Click text and read it all before you decide not to since it`s ign ;)
Which is the same image that is on other sites (if you looked at the image to the right which is the actual package for that game you would see NO reference to PSN pass)Quote:
Originally Posted by Des
Plus this is a RUMOUR and NOTHING official has been confirmed
"SCEA responded to requests for comment this morning to clarify, saying this program requires customers to input a one-time use code to access a game's online capabilities, similar to EA's Online Pass introduced last year. "Quote:
Originally Posted by demonix
Sony Computer Entertainment America says so themselfs.
That is pretty official :P
The other image without the mark is probably taken from before they decided it, remember that article was written by someone at IGN, they`re perfectly capable in putting an old pic in there :P
@Des From what I seen in the Latest Buys thread, you buy your games new, so I don't know why you're saying you won't buy MW3 if Acti pulls the same strategy. You're not paying for a thing...only the people who buy their games used.
I totally agree that they are fighting against used sales but I don't agree with the pass idea because it means you can't trade or share the game.
If they rewarded people for buying the game new and for those who bought it used, they get the full game with every function integrated but they only missed the exclusive content. That's more fair.
Sigh... I guess I won't be playing LBP3 when it comes out online.. I plan to buy those used. Buying used isn't that bad unless you buy from something like gamestop which is a rip off. Sony shouldn't blanket this :[ My brother lends me his old outdated games so what? I wouldn't be able to play them without paying? Pshhh. I think I'm just going to go back to playing the game cube.. N64 and supernintendo. Less hassle.
@Shinichi
I was planing on buying MW3 used, don`t want to give more of my cash to Activision :P
Now I won`t.
I`ve bought both MW & MW2 used.
Hey cool, a video game developer/manufacturer trying to make more money through 'outrageous' methods. This is new.
not like i played online/bought games on ps3 anyways, this'll just be the nail in the coffin for me. though more importantly if you buy a used EA game would you have to pay both companies or would EA drop the pass for ps3?
You aren't paying Sony for online service, you're paying Activision for a feature unlock. Which is fair, honestly, used video games make game company the same amount of money as stealing it from the internet. Well actually, even less because stolen games are usually unable to be used online except in LAN matches whereas used games still take up space on official servers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Des
Probably won't get used unless Xbox uses the same system. Sony isn't retarded at this sort of thing.Quote:
It`s not a good way to get back the cash they lost from the hacking since alot of people will get pissed and switch to Xbox.
Knowing EA, I wouldn't be surprised if they did both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sr Machinehead
@Manhattan_Project_2000 If you own the disc you should own all rights to it. I'll use the same analogy I used in a previous thread. If you buy a used car the company who made the car wouldn't be able to come and claim the engine because they didn't make any money off the sale. Why should video games be any different. If you own the disc and it features multiplayer then you should have access to multiplayer.
No this PSN Pass is only for the games that are published by Sony, like Resistance 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sr Machinehead
Again the pass is only for Sony-published games.Quote:
Originally Posted by GameGeeks
Yes, you payed for it so you got the license to sell it to someone else or let someone else borrow it. In the other hand, whoever bought it from person 1 used, that person should be the one paying the consequences. The one who sells their games to GameStop aren't really the bad guys but because you have the right sell whatever you bought...but if you're cheap and decided to buy that cheap copy to save 3 bucks then the company doesn't really have to care about you.
@Shinichi I personally think there should be laws protecting consumers from tactics like these. As far as I'm concerned it's extortion.
@GameGeeks But if you payed 55 bucks for the game just to save 5 miserable bucks it means you don't care about the company at all, why should the company care about you?
That's just GameStop over charging for used games. The sacrifice of owning used is that the game itself has no guarantee to work. And what if you simply give the friend the game? They should have full access to multiplayer too. And as someone in the other thread mentioned, what if they no longer produce the game new but still support the multiplayer aspect?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinichi
Then explain to me why straight up piracy is wrong. The problem with piracy is that it takes one the content creator's intellectual property and delivers it to another person without any compensation to the creator. Used games are the same deal exact deal, only you've exchanged a piece of plastic that's completely immaterial to the intellectual property and it's value. In both cases, Piracy and Used Games cause the creators to have to compete against themselves, either against a reduced price at Gamestop or the time and energy put into stealing the game off the internets. Used games and piracy are completely interchangeable in the IP creator's eyes, except insofar as people are more receptive to whining about piracy. I don't think it's a problem if Activision want's to charge you 20 dollars to play a game on their servers that you paid them nothing for. Gamestop will either reduce their prices on Pass games accordingly or go out of bussiness after they get done stealing money from yokels that don't know about the pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by GameGeeks
Almost every gamestore has an exchange policy that allows you to return defective used games within a reasonable amount of time. There is no reason to spend 5 extra dollars for the consumer, unless you aren't a jerk and actually care about paying people to make your video games.Quote:
Originally Posted by GameGeeks
@Manhattan_Project_2000 Piracy is just strait up theft of the data. A used game is not as it was already paid for by the original owner. What that owner chooses to do afterwards is his prerogative. If he wants to smash it it's his choice if he wants to sell it it's his choice. And I don't see how it's costing them more money when the original owner no longer has access to the game and thus no multiplayer. It's still the same number of games that have access to the servers so I don't buy that reason. As such locking multiplayer has nothing to do with used game hurting the company other then the company is using it as an excuse to extort more money from you. It's just them being greedy.
Next paragraph. Lets take Gamestop, they only have a seven day policy for used games. What if it takes eleven days for the game to malfunction? You're screwed. That's the risk you take when you buy used. And it's only a five dollar difference when the game is still new. A year later that used game could drop to say forty dollars while a new version is still sitting at sixty. And it has nothing to do with not paying companies as they still got the money for that specific game and as such is costing them nothing financially. It's just the companies being greedy.
Ok, so if I legally buy a game and then copy the data for my friends, should be no issue, right? I mean, I paid for it the game as the original owner. What I choose to do afterword is my prerogative.Quote:
Originally Posted by GameGeeks
Or are you saying the disc holds some special significance, as if game companies were in the business of selling twenty cent plastic disks for 60 dollars and not the intellectual property on them?
It's easy.Quote:
And I don't see how it's costing them more money when the original owner no longer has access to the game and thus no multiplayer. It's still the same number of games that have access to the servers so I don't buy that reason. As such locking multiplayer has nothing to do with used game hurting the company other then the company is using it as an excuse to extort more money from you. It's just them being greedy.
Timmy buys Super Awesome 5.
Timmy plays Super Awesome 5 for 3 weeks.
Timmy sells it to Gamesuck.
Steve goes to Gamesuck.
Steve buys Super Awesome 5.
Steve plays plays Super Awesome 5 for 4 weeks.
Steve sells it to Gamesuck.
Mikey goes to Gamesuck.
Mikey buys Super Awesome 5.
Mikey plays plays Super Awesome 5 for 1 1/2 weeks.
Mikey sells it to Gamesuck.
Kyle goes to Gamesuck.
Kyle buys Super Awesome 5.
Kyle plays plays Super Awesome 5 for 7 weeks.
Kyle's dog eat's his Super Awesome 5 disc.
So, in the life of this hypothetical disc, it was used by 4 people for 14 and 1/2 months, and the only one of them actually payed. Now you might say Timmy could have played it by himself for 14 and 1/2 months, and you'd be right. Two issues though:
A) Not only did this reselling not pay the creator for all this server time acrued by multiple people over time, it discouraged the non-original owners from paying them whatever the going price for Super Awesome 5 was at the time. If we assume a locked price of 60 dollars, this cost the game company 180 dollars.
B) Games have a certain half-life in our imagination. Except in maybe the case of MMO's and similar games (Hat Fortress 2 comes to mind) people can only play them a certain period of time before they get into some other game. When you purchase the game, the creator knows that that amount of time exists, and they plan for it in their costs. Reselling increases that amount of time, ergo costs them money.
You either didn't look at the disc (any scratch big enough to effect gameplay is big enough to be seen) and didn't play it for 10 days, or you yourself scratched it. Also, last I knew Gamestop policy was 7 days no questions asked returns, and 30 days exchanges.Quote:
Next paragraph. Lets take Gamestop, they only have a seven day policy for used games. What if it takes eleven days for the game to malfunction? You're screwed.
This is false insofar as gaming companies have gotten pretty aggressive at price cutting to compete with used games, they usually drop to $40 or $30 in the first 2-6 mo. and either aren't stocked, being liquidated at $15-20 or are $30 greatest hits within a year.Quote:
That's the risk you take when you buy used. And it's only a five dollar difference when the game is still new. A year later that used game could drop to say forty dollars while a new version is still sitting at sixty. And it has nothing to do with not paying companies as they still got the money for that specific game and as such is costing them nothing financially. It's just the companies being greedy.
As for the rest, I'll re-restate myself.
To use the sort of argument that gets bandied about when talking about piracy, we can use an analogy of vases. Vases have value, and are sold at or around that value. People try to claim that stealing a game is like stealing a vase. This is a somewhat inaccurate analogy because piracy isn't at all like stealing a vase: when you pirate something you copy it, not remove it from someone's inventory and add it to your own. But even worse, video games aren't vases because video games aren't physical objects, they are an idea formed of of lines of code. If you are taking their idea and not paying them for it you are stealing. I guarentee that a video game company never has made a contract that you have signed that says "Hey, you gave us 60 dollars, you can take our idea and sell it to other people at your leasure".
Now, the way people choose to think about this issue as if the game company were selling plastic disks that accidentally had game data on them. And that's whatever. But I for one won't demonize people for trying to acually get paid for their hard work and their ideas instead of Gamestop making 10-40 dollars a pop for shuffling around the discs that contain them. If anyone are the greedy jerks here, it's used videogame resellers who are the cancer that keeps console game prices at 60 dollars.