Ben-DutkaWell, after Sony's online pass program debuted with Resistance 3 , you had to figure future first-party games would also have the same restriction.
The initial confirmation came when Spanish site The Vault quoted Sony Spain software manager Juan Jimenez saying Naughty Dog's latest would use the network pass. It was later confirmed to GameSpot .
Like EA's and THQ's Online Passes, if you buy Uncharted 3 new, you won't have to pay anything extra to sample the game's online multiplayer. However, if you purchase it used, you'll have to pay $10 to gain access. Now the question is, could this damage the game's sales potential? Many say the online pass was partly to blame for lower than expected sales of Resistance 3 , even if we believe it had more to do with the upcoming shooter lineup.
Furthermore, multiplayer for shooters is typically a much bigger draw; the multiplayer in Naughty Dog's game will be appealing, but the title will thrive on its single-player adventure. And of course, Uncharted 3 is different; it's widely regarded as one of the most anticipated titles of the year and an almost guaranteed Game of the Year contender. So does the online pass hurt at all? Does it even matter?
Related Game(s): Uncharted 3
R3 wasn't worth $60 to begin with. Plus the multiplayer portion of R3 is just plain bunk. That's what hurt R3. U3 has a good chance of selling well reguardless of the online pass. There's alot of dedicated fans of the Uncharted series. I could care less about U3. Not really into 3rd person shooters anymore. GOW3 being the exception. Not so many gamers are fans of the online pass too. U3 should sell well.
You made so many comments that I agree and disagree. I don't know if I should thumbs up or down you.
I concur, godsman…
So basically, U3 will sell good 🙂
This annoys me somewhat
Are you getting the game on day one? Or atleast new?
Indeed sir, but I like to share.
Lol well it doesn't affect you directly, so your kind heart shouldn't be concerned right now. 😉
Doesn't really bother me, Was going to get U3 day one just like i did with U2.
It shouldn't. Those who claim to be fans of the series should be supporting ND and not Gamestop.
Can't naughty dog take the $10 from gamestop rather than it's loyal customers?
How is ND taking $10 from it's customers? The game is still $60. The only Time you would ever pay for the pass is if you bought the game used.
And how would they do that? Gamestop isn't going to just hand over part of their profit. Even if they did people should be supporting the developers who make the games we enjoy and not the middle men who make 100% profit off of someone else's hardwork and commitment. You want to keep playing games? Then pay the people who make them not those who profit off the developers backs.
Or if you have another profile for a family member….. which is complete BS
What I'm saying is, The problem is gamestop actively selling used copies over new copies so they should be the ones getting punished.
You're missing the point. If you buy the game new you won't be "punished". You want to be a cheap skate and save $5 and cut ND out of the profit they deserve then you will have to pony up $10 if you wish to use their server space to play the game online. Seems perfectly fair to me.
This brings up the question. Can't the publishers/developers sue them for a piece of the profit from used game sales?
I mean, the collector's edition games and those games bundled with PS3 clearly states "Not For Resale" on the back of the game case.
Right on Jawknee!
@godsman
you think gamestop would actually honor that "not for resale" tag on the back of the case? either they'll sell it anyway or just take out that piece of paper and sell it like all their other used games.
i think developers already tried to get a cut from gamestop before but it failed. gamestop probably even told them that they wont give away part of their profits. business wise, why would you share your profits to someone if you dont have to.
@Him
if you have a profile from another family member then tell him to use your psn profile if he wanted to play it so badly. if you guys dont want to do that then you have to "buy in" to the servers for his spot.
Last edited by johnld on 10/4/2011 2:16:15 AM
Online pass attaches to your activated PS3. Anyone can use the online pass if they are using your PS3. If you get a new PS3, you deactivate the old one and activate the new one WITH the original account that registered the ID to your PS3.
Family members can still play on your PS3 so long as your PSN ID has activated that PS3.
At least, that's what I thought….
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 10/4/2011 9:02:36 AM
I hope that's the way it is Underdog.
It is. It's basically an add-on from the PSN store. They all have been that way from Mortal Kombat to Medal of Honor to Resistance 3.
Jawknee you had said …
"Even if they did people should be supporting the developers who make the games we enjoy and not the middle men who make 100% profit off of someone else's hardwork and commitment. You want to keep playing games? Then pay the people who make them not those who profit off the developers backs"
And then…
"You want to be a cheap skate and save $5 and cut ND out of the profit they deserve then you will have to pony up $10 if you wish to use their server space to play the game online. "
But I will counter with they are already getting paid, the first time the game is bought. What this actually hurts in more perspective, in my opinion, is the renters. The people who want to try before they buy so to speak. I rented Black Ops when it first came out and did the online. I didnt like the way the online games played with the people involved, Im more of a Killzone 3 and Medal of Honor fan. So I didnt buy Black Ops. I tried out MOH and loved the game but it didnt have enough variety for me so I didnt buy it.
I dont really have any simpithy for the people who buy it used but the people who are really getting screwed, and are often forgotten are the renters.
"But I will counter with they are already getting paid, the first time the game is bought."
So what? That next person who decided to buy used is still cutting ND out of a new sale and supporting a price gouging hack of a company called Gamestop.
In the end ND loses a sale to a 3rd party who had nothing to do with the creation or distribution of the said title. Also see JohnLD's counter argument to your argument. It's sily assume just because some one else bought the game first that ND isn't losing out in a potential sale.
So should I not be allowed to have a garage sale because it's cutting out the producer/creator of the goods I am selling? Golly Gee what about all the CD's and DVD's I have sold used on ebay guess I should go write chrysler a check for my liberty I bought used and better send GM a check for my 79 Trans Am that I bought used also. You mention price gouging, there is nothing more inflated then $60 for any game. Granted I dont buy used games until I save atleast 20 dollars off the retail price of new. Also gamestop has plenty to do with the distrubution of the game, they sell the game in the first place. I would not have bought UC and UC2 had I not gottem them used, for 15,20 bucks a few months ago. I also would not buy nearly the same amount of new games if I was not able to trade in my used games towards them, you fail to recognize that important part of the game buying cycle.
Enough with the car analogy. It's utter nonsense and many have already explained why. It's apples and oranges!
By the way, Chrysler should be paying YOU to drive that piece of crap.
Jawknee too bad you missed 79transam's completely valid points about everything else but cars, like CD's, DVD's, books, used electronics or just about anything else of about a gazillion items you can buy/sell on ebay.
You also managed to miss his point that he wouldn't have been able to afford as many NEW games if he had not been able to trade or sell in his old used ones.
I guess if it doesn't work with your look on things it's not worth mentioning…
Too bad you don't know how comprehend basic english.
Once again and for the final time…apples and oranges.
Jawk, one thing I have noticed about our society at large, is that even when faced with cold-hard facts like the ones you, Highlander, and I have been raising, people will refuse to acknowledge their existence just so they don't have to adjust their moral compass.
It's like a screaming 3 year old who refuses to go to bed at bedtime for the sole reason of, "BECAUSE I DON'T WANNA!!!!!!"
Any justification that can be found to ignore the facts will be given so that unwanted change isn't necessary.
Oh… and it's everyone else's fault, too.
Indeed. I have noticed how a great many of these people complaining about this on this thread are ignoring what we have posted. It's as if they didn't even read it.
"Too bad you don't know how comprehend basic english.
Once again and for the final time…apples and oranges."
What's too bad is your inability to make an argument without resorting to a personal attack rather then taking the intended content of the argument Crabba made into consideration.
79,
He addressed Crabba's point twice… but Crabba ignored everything Jawk said twice and then repeated what he said the first time…
If I were Jawk, I'd be frustrated too.
Stop judging comments as if they are stand-alone commentaries. Read the entire thread.
Crabba's points are brutally awful.
"So what? That next person who decided to buy used is still cutting ND out of a new sale and supporting a price gouging hack of a company called Gamestop. "
I think it all falls back on the old argument… what can you get for $2 million that you cant get for $1 million. There will always be those folks who (like me) say whats the big deal over an extra million per sea. I mean in the theoretical argument your are already set up for life with $1 million. You arent gonna hurt if you dont get that extra million so why fight over it.
My point is Naughty Dog isnt hurting. They wont close down tommorrow if they dont charge for online. Neither will Activision or EA. So most people will see this as strictly for the money side of things. Think ND as being greedy and rightfully so. The whole arugment that everyone is doing it doesnt hold water with me.
I dont think you have to charge people who buy games used to use online. Just my opinion. Some people will say once they start charging for this when will it stop. I agree with that. I like things like David Cage ( I think thats his name. From Heavy Rain. ) is doing in saying Im not going with the flow or following trends here, Im not about making crazy money, I just want to make games people care about, kinda stuff. But the only thing is the more people who follow the trends like charging for online there are, the fewer people like Cage there are. And pretty soon we on the PS3 have to start paying for internet gaming like the XBOX.
Just my thoughts……..
Last edited by wackazoa on 10/5/2011 2:52:09 PM
Jawk, I'm sorry I don't "know how comprehend basic english", maybe some people can also see the irony in that statement lol
Underdog15, "people will refuse to acknowledge their existence just so they don't have to adjust their moral compass". Well I guess the exact same thing can be said about you and Jawknee, but oh I know, my opinion is awful, and your opinion – Superior. Ok, I get it now.
Oh and "He addressed Crabba's point twice", I don't believe he addressed any of my, or 79transam's, points for that matter. All he said was that I lack english comprehension, but I guess that's one way of rebutting a point…
@Wakaoza
It's not a million here million there…
When you beat Uncharted 2, did you see the credits? Did you see how many names are there? Did you see how many people need to get paid? Do you know how many investors there are in NaughtyDog? Do you know what percentage of income is invested in future projects?
1 million is NOT a lot of money for an entire organization. It's not all going to one person
Crabba,
I haven't resorted to name calling.
Your points are legitimate if the only point of view that matters is the individual consumer's bottom line.
My point is that there is a far greater picture that you are ignoring. There are plenty of EASILY researched facts that you simply are not considering. If you could examine those same facts and provide a rebuttal, then YES… we would be forced to examine what you present and consider what we think.
However, you do not look at the bigger picture, nor do you address it. How do you expect me to change my point of view when you don't even challenge my point of view? All you do is go back to the original point you made that I refuted.
It isn't superiority complexes or anything like that. It's built up from a frustration of effectively being ignored and brushed aside.
So far as I can tell, you haven't considered where used game sales money goes vs. where money would go if it went to the publisher/developer.
I can tell you… Gamestop's business hierarchy distributes net income to 3 things. (Bear in mind, net income is AFTER paying hourly wages. So by net, I mean the money earned after paying everyone that NEEDS to be paid under labor laws)
1) The business owner/leasee.
2) The Game Stop franchise (includes CEO's, owners, and shareholders)
3) Opening future Game Stop stores, which effectively, increases the organization's overall net income.
In other words, everything is in the pursuit of CEO and owners increased wallets.
If it goes to the publisher/developer… after all employees are paid and you reach a net income, some does go to shareholders and owners as the value of the company increases, but a large percentage of the net income will go into investing in the company.
In other words, future projects will have larger staffs and staff members of higher expertise. You'll also see an ability for longer development cycles (which prolongs employment of employees). In other words, it -WILL- increase the potential quality that can be obtained.
Neither me nor Jawk are saying used sales are evil or bad. In fact, I never said you're a bad person for buying used.
My point is that the current business model for used sales is a bad one because there is no way a publisher/developer can recoup cost (before passes).
Car companies do NOT have this issue. They have sister companies that continue to make parts and mechanics who continue to make repairs. Book companies release new editions of text books and best sellers. In fact, most textbooks are re-published with a different organizing scheme every 2 years on average so students can't keep up in class easily if they buy their books used.
Used furniture depreciates in value and you risk potential health issues like allergens and bed bugs. You also risk weakened stability.
The fact is… the two simply CANNOT be compared. And you have not provided an argument that is counter productive to my way of thinking. You simply restate what I originally argued with. That is not any way to even give me an opportunity to reconsider my point of view.
Saying I have a superiority complex or whatever is not fair at all. I am always re-evaluating my stance on morality and opinions consistently. Even on this topic, my opinions have changed considerably in the last year. Anyone who listens to what I had to say from a year ago to know could probably also attest to the changed direction I have taken on this issue.
I ask you now… what about ANYTHING I have said to you now is unreasonable?
Thank you Underdog for not resorting to namecalling this time around, that's very refreshing.
Well, I don't see anything unreasonable in what you just said, except for the used books, cars & furniture part since I don't see that there is anything different in depreciation in value in used games, dvds, blu-rays, books, cars or furniture. All are completely valid items to buy new, or used, and all of them WILL depreciate in value, as everything does, and all of these items come in new versions, models, packaging to try to sell new versions to consumers, including new models in cars, new editions in books, and new editions in games like GOTY, Greatest Hits etc.
I have also never said that game developers don't derserve to get paid, or that people shouldn't buy their games new to support them if they can and want to. But that could and should be said about any other product as well. If you like an author's new book, you should buy it new to support him/her, otherwise just like games he/she obviously won't see any money from it, and the same thing goes for DVD's/blu-ray's. If you buy a car from a non-brand dealer, they won't see any money from it either, and you can buy parts and service anywhere.
My original point though has nothing to do with this, it has to do with the PSN Pass, which a lot of people including me don't like. Resistance 3 obviously did not sell a truck-load of copies because of the PSN Pass, and might very well have sold fewer copies because of it. So then where does the 'game developers deserve to get money' come in, when they in R3 case at least clearly didn't?
That makes it just another nuisance for gamers, devaluating their games even further because functions are restricted to first use, not even considering other potential issues like using it on multiple accounts or PS3s.
This whole Pass thing is all about greed, which might very well back-fire into less revenue for the publisher/developer. The Games industry has grown into a billion dollar industry perfectly well for many years without any passes, with many popular games selling millions of copies, again without any passes, so why the sudden need for Passes? Because of some sudden idea that 'we can STILL get MORE', that spells GREED.
First, know I'm totally with you about the current set up in used games. Nothing about anything done now is ideal. Passes are not ideal, in my mind, either. But I do think, unlike other industries, games do not have a way to continue support beyond first sale. I'll explain…
I already wrote lower about the car industry, books and more. Companies like Veriform, Cami, and more make auto parts under various brand names for their big brother companies. They are the ones that sell those replacement parts as well as new under various brand names. Yes, you can buy your parts from any joe shmoe mechanic, but it's still a part bought from a company that sends dividends of that sale back to Ford, GM, etc. Plus, repairs… it still supports the industry as a whole.
My point is that every industry out there has a plan in place to ensure continued revenue on products released to the public, even if that second hand sale does not come back to them.
Music and movies have DMV protection and laws that can be enforced for only private playing.
Furniture has harsh depreciation. (Once it leaves the store, it's worth half as much. Games, yeah, get sold to gamestop for 25, but are resold at 55 if new. They typically price 5 dollars under the MSRB)
Books release new editions, and text books become obsolete in 2 years requiring new purchases with every second class!
But games… without that online pass… they have nothing. DLC is different, because it's additional content and is optional. Those other industries I listed, even if product gets moved from customer to customer, they know at some point, they will likely recover some cost.
But hey, like I said, I'm totally with you on how passes aren't ideal. But until the industry experiences dramatic changes to make the gaming industry just as legitimate as every other industry, I'm having a hard time holding it against them. I don't see it as corporate greed, because most games that are made do not make anyone rich. Exceptions are Call of Duty and the like.
It's especially hard to think of it as corporate greed, when really, they're trying to gain more funds from even bigger corporations like gamestop… a corporation, that in my opinion, is the greediest of all!
You know, I'd agree with you if the games industry was on it's knees, hurting… Then I might have been able to agree with you that it would be understandable if they were looking for ways to be profitable. But let's face it, it's not, and the games industry is bigger today than it's ever been, even last I heard passing the movie industry in revenue, so why the need for greed? Where's the homeless developer looking for a handout?
I guess we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on the used merchandise front, because while I agree that used cars isn't the best comparison to video games, because a lot of the money is made post-sale on cars, movies and books are very close, and you don't see book publishers giving out special codes needed if you want to read the last page of the book (maybe I shouldn't give them any ideas, eek!)
It also so happens that both the dvd/blu-ray industry and games industry have never been stronger, and that's without use of any dumb passes.
Also, why does gamestop and the number $55 always come up as soon as soon as used games are discussed? I never shop at gamestop, and I would NEVER pay $55 for a used game, if I could buy a new one for $60, that's just stupid. Especially considering you can usually buy pre-order/brand new games from Amazon/Newegg for like $40/$45.
I'm not going to support any of this crap. Count me out. I miss the old days of gaming.
Not a big fan of Uncharted?
I really liked Uncharted, but I just can't support this kind of practice.
And why is that? Please explain…seems to me that people with your mindset seem to think it's okay for developers to make games and not get paid for it. Every used sale is a lost sale for ND and those people who buy used think they are entitled to use server space ND has to pay to maintain without giving them the revenue to maintain it? Give me a break.
When you buy uncharted, you are buying the right to use their servers for multiplayer. It just comes with the game. If you want to give money to play online servers just use Live on the Xbox.
That's only part if it. You're also paying for the right to use the software, the cost of packaging, the cost to make the game, the cost of the employees etc. If you buy the game used and fail to reward ND for their hardwork and dedication then you don't get to use their servers unless you throw in on the cost for server space and maintaince. Which is $10. Not a whole lot to ask. That's two failed analogies by you now. It's not the same as LIVE at all.
Jawknee,
You have to try and understand that gamers in this generation are accustomed to buying cheaper games used online. Although 10-20 years later, used game sales will diminish and no one will remember them anymore.
This act also take value out of your game as well. For those who buy games then trade them in for another newer one will probably be selling them for $10 less than usual.
In retrospective that doesn't matter. If developers don't make money there won't be anymore games to play or trade in.
@him
yes, i can agree with that part with a small correction. when you buy uncharted NEW, therefore the developer sees profit from that sale, you have the right to access THEIR SERVER for multiplayer.
If you buy a game used and the developer never saw a cent from your purchase, what are you to them? you are basically nothing to them! business wise, you are a lost sale and thats it. if you buy used knowing full well that you yourself know that you arent supporting them, then why should they cater to you? These online passes arent even a separate fee if you are buying the game new anyway. buying the game used SHOULDNT grant you a spot on their server because they are the one that has to pay to maintain that server. you have access to single player but not multiplayer. when you buy used, all the money goes to the retailer which doesnt have anything to do with running the game AT ALL.
You'll probably use that arguement that "the original customer already paid for the online, since i have his copy, it wont add any more to the system". the fact is that it does add more to the system. it has to add your profile and keep the previous owners profile. He paid for HIS spot and he's going to have that spot reserved whether he decides to sell the game or repurchase it again. you, when you buy used you didnt do anything to contribute to this system. you dont deserve a spot in the system because you didnt do anything to earn a spot. in this case, supporting a developer by buying a game new earns you a spot indefinitely.
It'll still be cheaper to buy used and then get a $10 online fee in most cases.
If anything, this will drive down Gamestop's ability to resell a new used game at $55. In order to be worth it, they'll have to sell at $45 to compete.
You silly kids are over-reacting.
As for me, I love Uncharted and will be buying it brand new day one. And because it's so damn good, I'll never sell it.
Win – me.
If it comes to the day to a customer that wants to buy a certain game used, (that originally came with a online pass if bought new) where do u buy the online pass?