PSN Pass - Page 4

Wait, you are claiming that if I want to play a used copy of Halo 3 online I need to purchase the used game, pay an additional $10, and then also have the XBL membership?

No, I'm claiming that if you want to play any EA title on the 360 after buying it used, you're going to pay $10 on top of the $50 you pay for XBL.

$50 is MS's XBL Gold fee. Sony doesn't have one (not yet, not this gen but I'd bet for the PS4 you'll see a charge). This is the dev/publisher that is tacking on the additional $10 fee, regardless of developer/publisher. 1 is a system charge and it gives you access to online modes on top of everything else. The other is the dev/publisher. What the dev/publisher does shouldn't be linked to LIVE Gold. EA will still get your $10 from you if you buy used, and it's on them to maintain their crap servers that tend to go down on the norm and it's also on them to pull the plug whenever they feel like it, even just 1 year post launch.

Ubisoft also joining this "online pass":
http://www.gamerzines.com/ps3/news/u...ft-online.html

To be honest, i am surprised Ubisoft wasn't the first to implement this after thier AC:2 scam.

I havn't purchased a single Ubisoft product after that. And it looks like i will be out of the online gaming arena. There is no way i can justify the double that will affect me for every single game i pusrchase. (With three PS3's inthe house, and three players in the house, where a game may be played, this is just going to make all online games $90 for me.)

IMO if you buy a used game and play a 100 hours of MP you are a mooch. The devs and pubisher got no money from you. GS is such a leech on the industry, they deserve the backlash. Every publisher is going to go this route, if MS doesn't it is because they are already raping people to play P2P games.

The publisher was paid for their game. It's none of their business what happens to the disc afterwards.

what about renters?

Renting a game will only be useful for SP games. Forget about renting MP games.

Same applies to simply bringing the game to another system, whether it be your house or your friends.

It's a shame too... many devs toss in MP since they know sales will be better just for having MP in the game, and now want to charge you for their addition in case you bought used/rented/borrowed/etc, regardless of its any good or total crap.

I want to see multiplayer games completely separate from their single player counterparts. For example, sell resistance single player for 30 bucks, and multiplayer for 30 bucks. I would not actually mind this setup as I have zero interest in multiplayer games on 99% of most games so when I pay 60 bucks for a game now, I am not using half of it. As far as I am concerned multiplayer is only ruining most single player games as the devs focus is on mp these days for obvious reasons $$$ but that is another topic.

People like you will actually benefit from this new policy, not as much as selling two separate entities as you've proposed, but you'll certainly pay less than you do now,

Example. A brand new game costs $60. Currently, almost immediately upon the release of a game, a used copy can be purchased for about $5 less. Not much of a savings at all, but I'm sure the discount appeals to enough buyers to benefit the reseller.

Now look at a game that requires the $10 pass. The reseller can't possibly sell this game for $55 and expect to move stock because theyd be alienating all of the buyers who want to play online. So, we have to assume that two things will happen; 1) the reseller MUST lower the used price by taking the pass into account, which means that 2) the reseller will most-likely lower their buyback price as well. (my guess is that the buyback price will not be lowered by the same amount as the resell price and they'll cut into their margin a bit)

Anyhow, people who don't play online are getting a deal. They will end up saving up to $10 on each game. (that is until the resellers discover a way to counter the psn pass factor. Lol)

This.

yes and no ..

you bought the disk .. the software is leased as they still own it.

People like WHO? Unless there are Game Publisher company CEO's in this thread, very few of us will "benefit" from this move.

As i already laid out, this will raise the price of games by at least $20 for me, wheter or not i purchase new or used.

LOL Right...and music artists and studio films are paid for their property first too before people upload it to the internet for download...they should just back off, it's none of their business what happens to the content after it's purchased.

But people are not being charged to post copies of the games. you analogy is outright wrong. Tell me, do the music publishers come chasing after people buying second hand music, blocking out "the hits" from the media and forcing people to repurchase them from Itunes before their cd will work again?

Out of all the discussions and comparisons to other products, the fact is game publishers want a cut from every time a same copy of the games get sold, pre-owned.

Game publishers still want to hide from this fact. Games that have "online pass", at most it's printed with smaller print at the back of the game box and worded something like single use activation code. To casual gamers, what does even mean?

As game publishers clearly against reselling an used copy, why can't they put a large print on the game box clearly state,single ownership license only. Tell the buyer on the face when he/she looks at a pre-owned copy of the game that choosing to buy the game pre-owned is against the licensing.

What publishers really need to do is come up with a used game buy back program.

Take games out of circulation, but give back credit toward new games, special offers, loyalty programs, ect.

If you could get $5 more selling back to EA, and use the total to subsidize you next madden purchase, that's one less used game in the market and one more guaranteed purchase (albeit with a discount equal to the buy back price).

For individual use? yeah.

The bad will, and bad DRM tends to do more damage to their bottom line then piracy ever will.

Companies just can't get over the fact that digital IP can be copied over and over and over. The productions costs are sunk. So, sell the game to maximize the profit, not at some arbitrary set price ($60)

Look at steam, which is bring in tons and tons of money because of that model. A lot more people will pick up a game for cheap (in the case of the PC even if they can't run it currently), so much so that the profit margins end up being larger then if they sold it for $50-$60.

A lot of games/publishers are losing out on money because they're sticking to a self imposed price model, not focusing on their customers, and focusing too much on the booyman "pirates"

Can I use a purchased CD in my car, my home, my lady's car, sister's car, laptop, etc etc? Of course. This pass would be like buying the CD, and paying additional fees just to use the same disk on different hardware. And that's NEW purchase, not even looking at used!

You're trying to link piracy with used game sales. Apples and oranges.

People who only play single-player campaigns, and ignore the multiplayer online modes, will most-likely benefit. I explained it in the post you quoted.

What I said was obviously referring to individuals that respect such things as copyrights and are within the law.

I'm sorry I didn't spell it out for you the first time. I just thought you could manage to figure it out...


For a time, perhaps. But your statement is assuming that they're going to stop this concept here with online multiplayer. And that likely isn't going to the case. We already have examples like Mass Effect 2 that came with unlock codes that provide access to portion of the single player content, with used buyers having to spend $15 to gain access.

They've found a new way to finally take advantage of those buying used games to increase their profits. They're hardly going to just stop the concept here, even though TheDeanPSU is going to jump in and claim they will.

Yeah this is just a bad idea all around. I like the cd example above, I wondering if some consumer really pushed this legally, would it get somewhere? Imagine if this idea did happen with movies and music, surely it would not happen so quietly.

Both Bioware games, Mass Effects 2 and Dragon Age: Origins codes unlock additional character and their personal quests. In Dragon Age 2, the code unlocks Black Emporium and a dog. I found items sold at the Black Emporium are rather useless because I can find better and cheaper weapons from other merchants. The dog isn't a must to have but can be handy in some tougher battles as additional party member. I played DA2 through the first time without buying a single item from Black Emporium or needed the dog.

On X360 version of Mass Effects 2 and Dragon Age 2, if you link your account to EA account, it lets you share some of the DLCs to another account by linking to the same EA account. I know Mass Effects 2 didn't allow that in the past but EA changed their policy as to some of the DLCs sharing. But for paid larger DLCs, EA still doesn't allow multi ownership/account sharing.

You say "increase their profits", I say "recover lost sales". The video game industry is the only industry where the new and used market are in direct competition with each other and a used product is for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from a new one.

Would you two stop? BioWare did not charge anyone for access to single-player content. It's called downloadable content and it has been a part of gaming forever. You can go through Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 without ever needing to download any of that content and still experience the game the same way it's meant to be experienced.

If this is the type of thing you're going to cry about, then you should be taking issue with almost every release to date that includes any type of pre-order bonus or DLC for SP campaigns. Because obviously these companies are just damaging your SP experience.

PS: EA has ALWAYS allowed DLC sharing between your single logged in account across all platforms. In the original Dragon Age, if you got a pre-order bonus for PS3, it unlocked for Xbox 360 and PC as well.

That depends how you see as not able to experience the DLC character as the same experience in the game as each character has unique abilities. I do agree without the DLC character, the game can be completed properly.

As for EA allows DLC sharing across platforms, that is not entirely true as I have several examples. I have several DLC armors, ie. Inferno, Terminus and Collector armors, and several headgears on Mass Effects 2 on X360 version. None of those armor show as sharable on PS3 (sharable on PC) when I checked my Bioware account. The paid DLCs such as Shadow Broker doesn't show as sharable on PC nor PS3 (not that PS3 version needs it). Playing the PS3 version linked to the same Bioware account, none of the armors from X360 version appear.

With Dragon Age 2, the free promo armors and weapons from completing the demo show as sharable on both PS3 and X360. Not sure that's because I completed the demo on both consoles or they are automatically sharable. But the Black Emporium DLC from X360 is not sharable on PS3. (It's not needed as long I buy the PS3 version new).

Dragon Age: Origins included DLC on X360 shows on Bioware contents page but doesn't show as sharable with PS3. I have the Ultimate Edition on PS3 version, so don't need the X360 DLCs anyway.

I can't say if I own the PS3 version first, then DLCs become sharable with X360 since I bought all those games on X360 first before the PS3 version.

Here's my Bioware account showing the registered DLCs. Neither ME2 and DA: O DLCs show as sharable with PS3. Not shown in the screen capture, the promo armors and weapons from the DA2 demo show as sharable with PC/PS3/X360.

You know this has already been going on with game content, not just online play.

Someone mentioned Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2, both of which came with free extras locked behind a one time use code. Dante's Inferno did something similar as well. Black Ops gave me a free copy of the OG CoD, and Dead Space 2 gave me a free copy of Extraction.

Anyone that thinks the publishers will be stopping at online access restrictions is already too late, as content is being offered only with new copies of games. Sure you can buy it later, but same thing applies to online play. You could say it's DLC and not necessary, but is it really DLC if it's ready the day the game launches, or on the disc? (ha that could be a whole 'nother thread) Selling AAA titles piece by piece is already well underway.

You are completely correct. Back when X360 started with DLCs, I voiced the same concern as more disc contents will be moved to DLC. Of course, few minded and DLCs are expected today with games. I'll say character DLC for Dragon Age and Mass Effects 2 are some of the worst DLC designs. If I buy the character DLC late into the gameplay, the character doesn't get much use and it's just weird to have the character appears out of no where in the story. Also "missing chapter" DLC is very distracting to the main story. After I already completed the story in the game, more "missing chapter" DLCs appear. Why do I want to go back and play the "missing chapter" DLCs if I already know the end of the story? Playing the "missing chapter" DLCs is like playing the "deleted scenes".

With new game bundled DLC, it's the same. Few care when this started and now it's getting quite common with games. The included DLC with new game has expiration date. If you buy the game that has been sitting on the shelf for over a year, the DLC code probably have expired. So, you probably have to pay extra to buy the same DLC included with new game.

Other than some GOTY or Ultimate Edition that includes all the DLCs on the disc unlocked, it's quite impossible today to buy a game without the need to connecting online to download the remainder of the game contents. I collect my games and I do replay some of my favorite games a few years later. The advantage of having all the contents made for the game on disc unlocked is I know I can still play 100% of the game contents a few years from now. It's not fully possible with today's "DLC" system as the contents may not be available due to licensing or some other reasons. Even DLCs I bought today may not be accessible in a few years.

My opinion is now with more gamers concerned about the PSN Pass after EA has been doing it for a year, it's already too late as most publishers have joined the online pass system. Only option left is refuse to buy games with online pass which leads to very few games left to play over the time. Like it or not, we are stuck with online pass, new game DLC code and more contents moved to DLCs.