Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

I'm not a fan of this idea from Sony. I am a software developer, so I do understand the desire to profit from your work and having used outlets undercutting your ability to recoup development costs and reward for your work. A used game sale almost always guarantees that you will never sell that game to that person - it cuts out the people responsible for making the game completely from the equation.

However, I also understand that not every used game sale is a lost new sale (a used game buyer probably won't buy the game new, but not being able to get is used doesn't mean they would buy it new instead). And how it enables buyers to buy more new games, as well as add-on sales, and sequel new sales. All of that DOES benefit the developers.

I actually thought the "Online Pass" was a great idea. It preserves used sales for single player, but in the case of online gaming, a company also incurs the costs of maintaining servers, cheater policing and patches for ANYONE used or new that plays online. It is only fair that the used game buyer kick in some to the company that maintains the servers if you want to use that feature. You play the game until you trade it in, the original cost factors in the average span of time a player will play the game online, but with used games that span increases every time it is resold. I know it is wishful thinking, but the used game price should reflect that it is not a complete package - something Gamestop definitely does not do with the used prices $5 below new, but missing a $10 online pass. It's up to us to show we won't pay almost new prices for a game missing an online pass.

The Sony patent does not seem unusual for Sony. They have a history of proprietary formats and technology that have nothing to do with creating benefit for the consumer. Remember they were the ones busted for the root kit installer on music CDs many years ago. The only way I could support this is if new game prices fell drastically as a result, but you know that isn't their plan. If new PS4 games were $30, they would KILL the competition, regardless of used game ability. If anything though, they will bump up the standard price and let us be the ones to pay extra for their technology for their own benefit. New games $65 AND you can't trade them in. This is very similar to DiVX, the old Circuit City DVD format that tried to pass DRM costs onto the user with higher priced players. It didn't work out too well for Circuit City, either.

Originally Posted by joeboosauce What if you buy a second console? As in to have in another room or to replace a broken one? I got YLOD on my PS3. Do I have to rebuy my entire collection?!?!??? I've bought all the Sony consoles except Vita. IF they do this (I doubt the next-gen) then bye bye Sony...

Well, the idea there is you send the console in and pay Sony to fix it for "bend over" repair prices instead of picking up a new console for cheaper. Again, more profit for Sony - there is far more profit in a repair than a new hardware sale, they sell those things very close to cost (if not under) in the early stages of a generation.

This technology has absolutely zero benefit to the consumer unless they use it as a reason to lower new game prices. Which they won't.

The idea of treating digital software as discrete physical objects was antiquated two decades ago. I'm surprised that anyone in the industry is still clinging to it so desperately.

When you buy a "used" game, what you are actually buying is the disc, the case, and whatever paper inserts accompany them. The game itself is digital, and is only peripherally related to its physical container. You aren't buying the game, you are buying its physical conveyance. These discs can have lasting value to collectors, but not to anyone else. The very act of "trading in" games proves that they physical aspect of the medium is disposable to most consumers. Those who regularly dispose of their games in order to obtain new titles care only for the experience.

Originally Posted by Sarang01 As for CD market dying arguably it's a lot of the music industries fault. Most CD's are PCM stereo, i.e. Lossless stereo. This was great like 15 years ago. The Napster debacle could have been prevented accordingly by......wait for it, wait for it, transitioning the medium of music onto DVD's. Standardizing the music players into playing DVD's standard as well as CD's would've done the Music Industry a world of good. I mean, having high quality multichannel audio for play on those players would've made the downloads for newer stuff a bit of a bandwidth hurdle. Not to say there wouldn't have been widespread adoption of MP3's and all but a necessary bandwidth hurdle would have been put in place.

The CD market dying has nothing to do with audio quality it is about accessibility. The majority of music users just don't care enough for high quality multichannel audio for it to have stopped the transition to online music. Having near infinite music at your fingertips on the computer for free or cheap trumps any difference in quality from mp3's to cd's or dvd's for most consumers. CD's were already higher quality than mp3's especially mp3's encoded in the early days of napster and early online music sharing. If the industry had gone to dvd's, music would have just been converted to a lesser quality mp3 anyways. Consumers still aren't that concerned with audio quality, otherwise streaming wouldn't be as big as it is.

Originally Posted by Richard Kain The idea of treating digital software as discrete physical objects was antiquated two decades ago. I'm surprised that anyone in the industry is still clinging to it so desperately. When you buy a "used" game, what you are actually buying is the disc, the case, and whatever paper inserts accompany them. The game itself is digital, and is only peripherally related to its physical container. You aren't buying the game, you are buying its physical conveyance. These discs can have lasting value to collectors, but not to anyone else. The very act of "trading in" games proves that they physical aspect of the medium is disposable to most consumers. Those who regularly dispose of their games in order to obtain new titles care only for the experience.

Well said. I have the collector mentality (not for investment just for personal use) so I completely understand the want for physical media, I still have a large physical game collection, but very idea of media on discs is nearly antiquated now, and in ten years I suspect it will seem as silly as the thought of carrying around a binder of cd's these days.

Originally Posted by 62t When your PS3 or Xbox 360 break or when you get a new system, your transfer your profile to the new system and redownload everything you purchase, even if they been removed from the online store. We don't know what the new system will be like but I don't see it being very different.

I still don't think you know what a physical game disc is. You know those things you buy at Gamestop, Target, Walmart, Best Buy, or other retailers...yeah, those theoretically won't work on your 2nd console or replacement console. Speculating on next-gen, as next-next-gen in 5-10 years could actually be digital-only. Heh, America has the slowest internet in the world, not to mention most consoles never even go online.

Originally Posted by joeboosauce What if you buy a second console? As in to have in another room or to replace a broken one? I got YLOD on my PS3. Do I have to rebuy my entire collection?!?!??? I've bought all the Sony consoles except Vita. IF they do this (I doubt the next-gen) then bye bye Sony...

Exactly, a big problem. I know people that have gone through 5 Xbox 360's, either to RROD or just want the new slim that isn't as loud as a lawn mower. In theory, they would have had to replace their entire library of games (physical) each time, that's bogus.

Originally Posted by Richard Kain Those who regularly dispose of their games in order to obtain new titles care only for the experience.

Those who regularly dispose of their games (sell) do so in order to acquire new ones. I suppose it is only the "experience" that I care about BUT I have absolutely ZERO faith that $10 games that are only 6 months old will be the norm if the used game market dies.

Im worried that with a few software updates this could be implemented on the ps3 as well. I don't always buy used games, but I like having the option. I also like knowing I can re sell it. There better not be any issues with the ps4 because instead of wasting R&D dollars on this type of BS they should be trying to figure out how they're going to get the ps4 to play ps3 games.

Originally Posted by Thomas96 Im worried that with a few software updates this could be implemented on the ps3 as well. I don't always buy used games, but I like having the option. I also like knowing I can re sell it. There better not be any issues with the ps4 because instead of wasting R&D dollars on this type of BS they should be trying to figure out how they're going to get the ps4 to play ps3 games.

It's already possible on the PS3 if you think about how Sony enables the PS Vita cross buy functionality with games like PS All Star battle royale.

They used something with the same idea for Playstation All Stars and the free Vita version.

I honestly don't see Sony doing this for the PS4. If they somehow do I don't think people will care as much as everyone seems to think. People were in an uproar over online passes and now no one seems to really care.

Not to mention this pretty much has already happened with PC gaming a long time ago and it doesn't seem like anyone really cares.

If the PS4 is being announced this year I can't see the new console having this new technology implemented. I'm no engineer but I can't imagine with something as dramatic as this new technology to be patented with less than a year before launch. You'd figure the patent is the first step and everything is engineered, roadmap, and marketed internally from there for a couple of years beforehand. My guess is this is for the PS5.

The problem here is a ton of people trade in their old games for new ones, regardless this is how people get new games. There are very few people who go and sell the game privately, most trade it to get the latest game. If there were no trade-ins I can't imagine people buying a console en masse, people would just not buy it. Each used game traded in, in a ton of cases equals the purchase of a new game at launch. GameStop would have a tough time selling a console to customers if customers could not trade back the games, I suspect they wouldn't carry the hardware.

GameStop is very different today than it was even last year, I see them preparing for this, they now have a whole section for gaming tablets and they advertise the heck out of their tablet and I-device trade in. A year ago the store was all games, now it's 33% tablets and used iDevices. They would have never started this if something wasn't changing in the gaming industry, it's clear the company needs to find a new direction to stay alive in the changing industry.

Originally Posted by whoknows Not to mention this pretty much has already happened with PC gaming a long time ago and it doesn't seem like anyone really cares.

If console game prices go as low as PC game prices have been going, I welcome the change.

Originally Posted by JasonTerminator If console game prices go as low as PC game prices have been going, I welcome the change.

You're better off waiting for the inevitable SteamBox. If the new "Big Picture" feature is any indication, Valve wants in people's living rooms.

Originally Posted by camoor i'm usually a big sony fan, but if this happens on the ps4 i am ditching it and getting whatever the competitors come up with.

+1

Originally Posted by defpally I actually thought the "Online Pass" was a great idea. It preserves used sales for single player, but in the case of online gaming, a company also incurs the costs of maintaining servers, cheater policing and patches for ANYONE used or new that plays online. It is only fair that the used game buyer kick in some to the company that maintains the servers if you want to use that feature.

Why? Used game sales don't increase the playerbase or burden on the servers. The first buyer can't play the game online anymore.

The whole "oh we need the online pass money for maintenance and upkeep" thing was proven a hollow lie when EA started shutting down the servers for online pass games.

I'd be shocked if that happened this next generation. Seems easier to just wait until they move to only downloadable games and take physical media out of the equation. And that's probably at least another generation away as broadband needs to be everywhere first so they're not writing off chunks of the rural market etc.

Personally, I doubt I'll buy another console anyway. Especially two generations away, I could see maybe getting one next gen if I get sucked in by a bunch of must play games after a price drop or something.

Originally Posted by SaraAB The problem here is a ton of people trade in their old games for new ones, regardless this is how people get new games. There are very few people who go and sell the game privately, most trade it to get the latest game.

That is your opinion. I would say "most" people hold onto their games. "Most" large retailers outside of Gamestop and Best Buy have very weak trade-in programs (if any at all). That means nearly all video game sales at Newegg, Walmart, Target, Kmart, Toys R Us, Sam's Club, etc. are done without someone trading a game in first.

Yes I know Target has a 3rd party trade-in program as does TRU and as did Kmart but it is virtually non existent.

This technology would not have as big of an impact in the real world as people on this site want to believe because they can't see things from an outside perspective.

Originally Posted by Salamando3000 You're better off waiting for the inevitable SteamBox. If the new "Big Picture" feature is any indication, Valve wants in people's living rooms.

Meh, I already have my PC hooked up to my TV. I used Big Picture for the first time a few days ago to play Shank, pretty good stuff. Microsoft and Sony should be scared shitless about Valve entering the market.

Hopefully prices will go down and I can get the damn Banjo Kazooie games for less than $15 each. ing XBL Store.

Originally Posted by GBAstar That is your opinion. I would say "most" people hold onto their games. "Most" large retailers outside of Gamestop and Best Buy have very weak trade-in programs (if any at all). That means nearly all video game sales at Newegg, Walmart, Target, Kmart, Toys R Us, Sam's Club, etc. are done without someone trading a game in first. Yes I know Target has a 3rd party trade-in program as does TRU and as did Kmart but it is virtually non existent. This technology would not have as big of an impact in the real world as people on this site want to believe because they can't see things from an outside perspective.

You forgot amazon but yeah I agree with you. The average consumer that buys games never trade it in. I rarely did myself until Best Buy started offering 100% trade in bonuses.

Originally Posted by ElwoodCuse Why? Used game sales don't increase the playerbase or burden on the servers. The first buyer can't play the game online anymore. The whole "oh we need the online pass money for maintenance and upkeep" thing was proven a hollow lie when EA started shutting down the servers for online pass games.

Regardless of what EA said or did, this reasoning is sound, though... publishers do need that money because of increased use of the servers. Sure the 1st purchaser isn't using the game anymore, but if they kept the game then their usage would drop over time. No publisher expects someone to play the game "forever", yet perpetual playing is exactly what would happen if the game keeps getting re-sold and the buyer of the used game uses the online portion. It's like a gym membership... the fee they charge you doesn't cover enough for everyone to use the facilities all at once. But they know that over time most people's usage will fall off, and so the model works. If full usage all the time had to be figured in, the price would be more.