Sony Considers Charging for Used Games that Play Online

Showing 52 comments

1. pfed at 10:51pm 16th December 2010 Dang, EA may be going in on it the wrong way, take into consideration, check out my deal about it! http://urlm.in/gjim
2. Gamer at 12:05am 8th October 2010 i agree, and disagree with this. Its a fair thing for a company that needs to continuously provide its service to the gamer, to want to be paid. And its true, that when someone buys a game second hand, the original company is losing a potential sale. And yes, they do provide servers, and it does cost to have maintenance staff, and technical support staff to help with the servers. But does a company like EA need to charge people for using their servers? No, not at all. I find it hard to believe that EA needs that money any more than you or I.
3. Stint at 8:12pm 10th September 2010 This makes perfect sense to me. The games industry is struggling, especially a lot of the smaller companies. You get the same amount of value out of a used game as you do from a new one so you should pay the same. I think it is only fair that a games company gets paid for every person that plays their game. If everyone buys new then more games will get made with bigger budgets. Think of it like global warming, except with less dire consequences. Instead of the world ending we just end up with lower quality/budget games. Don't think of it as greedy publishers wanting more of your money, think of it as penniless game developers needing your support.
4. hashmaster at 7:14pm 4th September 2010 this is a load of crap honestly. Sony is in no way losing money when one of their games is sold at a discount price. why? The very same game which is being bought used had to have been new at one point. You cant buy a brand new used car, the same goes for a video game which means when the game was still all shiny in its shrink-wrapping sitting on a shelf in best buy or target, someone paid 60 bucks for it. Now if that someone sells the game back to gamestop at an immense personal loss (the used game industry in and of itself is a whole different monster) and gamestop then resells the game at a used price, sony is getting even more money from the reselling of a game someone already gave them new price for. someone in Sony, EA, THQ, and Activision corporate must be smoking crack
5. God Among Zombies at 12:11pm 1st September 2010 YOU ARE ALL RETARDED A one time fee for online service is perfectly fair. If I were a game dev, I would just shun the used game buyers altogether. Game Dev's gain absolutely nothing from a 2nd hand sales. Music and Movies are different because there is no continuing support happening Part of the price you pay for a new game goes towards providing / maintaining that game's online content delivery. The only argument that can be made is that, if a game is sold second hand, there is no change in the number of users accessing online content delivery. This argument, however, fails to take into fact the cost for continuing development and maintaince, and hence the need for a continuing revenue stream. This will not be a problem when all game / music / movie makers toss physical media to the wayside in favor digital distrobution. You cheapskates cant exactly sale 1s and 0s.
6. God Among Zombies at 12:11pm 1st September 2010 YOU ARE ALL RETARDED A one time fee for online service is perfectly fair. If I were a game dev, I would just shun the used game buyers altogether. Game Dev's gain absolutely nothing from a 2nd hand sales. Music and Movies are different because there is no continuing support happening Part of the price you pay for a new game goes towards providing / maintaining that game's online content delivery. The only argument that can be made is that, if a game is sold second hand, there is no change in the number of users accessing online content delivery. This argument, however, fails to take into fact the cost for continuing development and maintaince, and hence the need for a continuing revenue stream. This will not be a problem when all game / music / movie makers toss physical media to the wayside in favor digital distrobution. You cheapskates cant exactly sale 1s and 0s.
7. Cpt. Cough at 10:26am 31st August 2010 Am I missing some thing, is selling used games a new thing?
8. TheMAXX at 12:21am 31st August 2010 The most popular online games don't use central servers for gameplay, only to keep track of stats and to do matchmaking. When I play World at War or Modern Warfare 2 or Wipeout HD it is another player who hosts the game, not some central server. Game companies have long sought to make money off the second hand market, now they figured out how to do it. Gamestop won't suffer and used game buyers won't suffer. The people who buy it new to begin with will take a hit when they want to trade in their game to buy another new game. Seems like it will have to lead to fewer new games sold in the long run which means fewer licensing fees paid to the console makers.
9. guest at 8:49am 30th August 2010 if i wanted to pay to play online i would've bought a 360 :(
10. Anonymous at 7:43pm 29th August 2010 Get educated http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/21/games-eedar-deve... http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Video_game_costs http://games.ign.com/articles/708/708972p1.html
11. Josh at 7:36pm 29th August 2010 It costs money to run a server. The money to run the server comes from sales of the game. More people playing equals more servers needed. If people buy games used, they are not giving any money towards the servers they will use. This strategy can also be used to combat piracy. This wont kill used game sales, it just means used game retailers will lower the price of used games to offset the additonal fee. You have to pay a fee to play any game online with the 360. Plus this is still in the suggestion phase. Its not even a guarantee they will do it. Lets not fly off the handle before it becomes reality.
    1. Draakan at 9:56am 1st September 2010 This argument has no merit. If the original owner never sold the game they would still be using the server at no extra cost. Once they sell the game they are no longer using the server. So why should a new owner pay to use the service the original owner was using? So there is no net change when a used game is bought.
12. Jeff at 7:21am 28th August 2010 well it's official gamefly is going out of business
13. erik at 1:26am 28th August 2010 I will never ever buy a Sony product again,not even batteries
14. Bill at 5:51pm 27th August 2010 OK, seriously, this stinks...yes... The solution? Play less games. Buy less games. Don't support companies that do business in a way that you disagree with. It's their right to incorporate these policies and it's your right to speak out by not buying their games. If you say, "but it's not fair, I like Madden, I like this game, I like that game..." then obviously they are smart to do this because they have offered a product some people think they cannot live without. It's not your divine right to be able to buy a used game for 54.99, and it's not your divine right to be able to sell your game back to Gamestop for 20 bucks. People bitching about this are the same people that bitch about Gamestop buying games for 20 and reselling them for 54.99... if you don't like it, then DON'T PARTICIPATE. Freedom...they have the right to charge exorbitant prices and you have the right to find a less expensive form of entertainment.
15. Elko at 2:57pm 27th August 2010 To pay extra for what? For s**t servers they provide like COD MW2 omg even $110 for game is a lot and they want more 10 million copy X $110 = WOW
16. UptownDogg at 9:47am 27th August 2010 The best way to solve this problem in my eyes is quite simple, it has also been done for years. When a new game is released just add something useful or different using a DL code. Usually when you buy a game used from places like GameStop, they lower the price by $5. Add some 1 time code to the packaging that people will actually want. Having something like that pre-packaged will help persuade people to drop the extra $5 or so to get the new game, because it comes with something they want, and won't get with a used title. Adding something mundane like a pair of avatar shoes will not cut it. Throw in a different weapon or weapons and see your new products move. Answer is simple enough. Last point is many people only by used older games because they are cheap. I purchased Overlord for 360 used for $10 a while ago. I liked the game and purchased Overlord 2 the day it was released. Would I have purchased the original NEW for $30, No. Ok so the developers lost that say but made another at a higher price point. Boils down to word of mouth, basically.
17. joejack at 8:59am 27th August 2010 Looks like we will have anther RIAA on our hands!!!! EA makes millions off of the one good game they have MADDEN NFL!!!!!!!! after that everything else they have sucks arse! Sony would be committing suicide if they started charging to play online! I bought a PS3 because it did everything out of the box with no added on charges like that POS rrod Xbox 360 that Microsoft tries to pawn off as a gaming system. These companies make millions a year on their games and like every one has said make one good game that people love to play (IE CODMW2) but with the lose of Infinity Ward making the game I highly doubt that game will produce what it has twice already. Sorry to get mixed up guys! I believe that the studios are pushing for this because they want more money of course its true that is business. But if they want to make more money they had better start making BETTER ENJOYABLE GAMES!! Then us gamers would be trading in our games like we do. I hope all of you agree have a good day.
18. Derek at 2:28am 27th August 2010 Those server costs must just be SO high that they're just now realizing it. What happened to the last 10+ years of online gaming? Didn't it cost then too? They simply aren't satisfied with the amount they're already making by selling the games for $60. It has nothing to do with server costs. That's the line they feed to get us to buy into the crap. They aren't offering a service. They are backing up the products they sell and market. Sure, it may cost them something to run the servers, but that's part of their selling point to get you to pay $60 to begin with. That'd be like Best Buy complaining they have to replace your appliance after it broke within the first year, even though they were the one pushing the warranty. These publishers are pushing the online gaming thing hard, simply by the way they design their games to focus on it. Honestly, it all goes back to EA's dispute with Microsoft to allow them to have their own servers. Microsoft provides servers, which is why we all pay an Xbox Live payment every month/year. EA wanted their own servers, due to the excessive amount they have available, so they could one day do this and circumvent the entire system. Well, they did it. Now, publishers are going to start charging to play online, even when they don't run the servers. They'll use some veil, saying, "Enter your code to unlock all kinds of exclusive online content," when they really mean, "enter your code to unlock access to Xbox Live for this game, the service you already pay for. It's just that we want a cut too." In regards to your comment on "clogging up the servers," and "giving it a lifespan beyond the projected cost of maintaining the servers" ... When you sell a product to someone, and they give you their hard earned cash, is it not theirs to own forever? Is it not their product, one that they can do use as much or as little as they want, for all of eternity? How can they assume Joe Shmoe is going to stop playing the game after three months, based on projections? They need to assume that for every game sold, the owner will utilize the online play indefinitely, far into the future. Whether it's Joe Schmoe or John Doe, it doesn't really matter who's gamertag is connected to the server. At the end of the day, that $60 disc was paid for. It's not like it's a bootleg copy that's bogging down the servers. It's a legit copy bought from EA/Sony. I simply don't understand this excuse. They're complaining they have to support the very product they sold? We aren't even talking about supporting it years down the road. Often times, people return games within the first week. They can't even support their product for a week? That's shallow.
19. ThinkAgain at 12:43am 27th August 2010 I think this is kind of silly, myself, but I do have somewhat of a defense for what they're doing. Server costs. The argument that you don't pay a car company twice when you buy a used car doesn't work as a defense, because the car company does not continue to offer you a service which still costs them money. Online play is a service. It is not a product you buy off of the shelf. When someone buys a game new with online play, generally they get their fill and then stop clogging up the server with their connection on that game. When said person sells/trades that game, they are giving it a lifespan beyond the projected cost of maintaining the servers based on the original price of the game. In essence, the publisher ends up getting diminished returns on the sale of their product, because it is outliving what they expected. This is why they are doing this, and it's not a "monopoly." Now, in my opinion, this is a silly way of going about this. XBox covers their server costs with subscription fees. I think that is the more realistic and reasonable way of going about it. You may disagree, but if that is the case and you want to keep PS3 subscription free for online play, then you may want to consider being more lenient in your view on this second-hand fee.
20. HitmanAgent47 at 11:10pm 26th August 2010 Sony sure likes to stay in 3rd place indefinetly by all their decisions. So much for the ps3 is the so called next gen console you can buy that doesn't charge you to play for online multiplayer.
21. Nicholas Filatov at 10:48pm 26th August 2010 this will show u proof.. cod membership http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nz_BJe8rDY
22. Franco at 10:46pm 26th August 2010 I bought red dead redemption for 54 bucks used. I saved what 8 - 9 dollars, so basically I would be paying more for a used game. Hmm, I see places like game stop losing business. I think a great solution would be forcing devs to make demos available for all their games. I've bought most of my games after playing the demo. Sucks to spend 60 dollars plus tax to realize the game you saw a trailer for or a non playable demo sucks balls. I also agree that the price point for these games are way to expensive, too much greed.
    1. Derek at 11:04pm 26th August 2010 The fact that Gamestop still sells used games for so much, especially when they now require you to pay an extra $10 to play online, amazes me. They'll be put in their place soon. With Target and Best Buy entering the used game market, they're screwed. There's finally going to be competition in the used games market outside of eBay and Craigslist. I can't wait to see what happens.
       1. Brad Kuhn at 9:35pm 27th August 2010 $54 is ridiculous, true, but this doesn't apply to games with an online pass. As far as I've seen, every game to come out so far (recently anyway) that has had an online pass has an initial used price that's cheaper. It usually equals that adjusted used price + online pass = old used price. If you don't intend to play it online or the code happens to be unused, then hey, you just got the game for even cheaper! I don't play sports games online so this whole ordeal actually encourages me to buy them used.
23. Brendan at 10:05pm 26th August 2010 What a huge mistake they are making... Used game sales don't hurt the publishers or developers at all, they HELP them. It is much easier for people to commit to pay $60 for a brand new title if they know they can turn it in for a reasonable amount of cash when they are done with it. Used game sales make it easier for your primary market to buy in. Consider cars: would people buy as many new cars if they could not sell off their old ones? Sure, _eventually_ you have to buy new cars, but sales would inevitably decrease, because you don't get the natural market segmentation of the second-hand buyers supporting the purchases of the primary purchasers. Really, it's simple. It's sad that game publishers think they are helping themselves, when really they will HURT themselves with this move.
    1. Derek at 10:48pm 26th August 2010 I completely agree, 100%. In the future, I'm much less likely to ever buy an EA or Sony game based on the fact that they're diminishing the value of the games they offer once I input this code. The item is instantly less valuable once you input the code, and there's really no way to prove you haven't activated it, by design. They could use scratch off coating so that you could prove you didn't use the code, thus you'd retain the value of the game. Unfortunately, they simply print the code on the back of the instructions, so it's impossible to prove to Gamestop that you didn't use the code. They assume you did, so you're game is automatically devalued. Not only do they devalue the game for people who use the code, they devalue people who don't even use it. To me, I see this as the publishers playing a game of chicken. They're assuming the consumers are going to cave in and just adapt to the new change. They don't think we'll actually abandon them and their products. They know we'll continue to be the good sheep we are and buy their games, regardless of the fact that we're being milked like a cow utter.
24. Peter at 9:27pm 26th August 2010 1984
25. Games Are a Ripoff at 8:57pm 26th August 2010 How about , they sell games for a good price in the first place so i would not bother trading it in to afford a new game , or maby give £60 of value so its worth holding onto the game , IT seems only pc games give good value for money and evan thats changing. Allso why not just have good multiplayer Games dont evan need crazy hard core multiplayer for them to be worth keeping.
26. shawn at 8:39pm 26th August 2010 lol Jason thats a horrible joke but is a very relevant example.
27. Jason Bonham at 8:30pm 26th August 2010 I for one think this model should be extended to Automobiles. i.e. Yes you CAN buy a used automobile, but the steering won't work until you enter the online access code. And of course if your wireless connection breaks down, the steering will seize up until you call in with your credit card.
    1. Derek at 8:46pm 26th August 2010 I guess I don't understand why game publishers feel their second hand market is so different from that of every other industry/sector. You can sell dvds/blurays, cds, cars, TVs, furniture, watches, bookshelves, car audio equipment, etc, without ever needing to worry about the maker coming after more money. They already got their money. I don't hear Ford complaining that people are buying their used cars. I don't hear Universal complaining about people selling their blurays used. It's only because EA has the means, that's why they are doing this. It's absolutely ridiculous that they diminish a purchased product by allowing only one code to access online content. It's just like you say about the steering wheel. It's actually a little like Ford selling a car with a special key that's bound to the original owner. It'll only work if the original owner puts their thumb prints on the key. So if the original owner of the Ford sells the car, the new owner will need to buy a new key, even though there's already a working key. It wasn't like the original owner lost the key and needs to buy a replacement. The key simply won't work for any second-hand buyers. I'm so against this assassin ripoff technique that I refused to activate my code for Madden 11. So when I sold it yesterday, I informed the person that they wouldn't be charged the extra $10 from EA in order to get online. I made more money off the game by not activating it online. It's ridiculous enough how devalued games are after you open them. To knock off another $10 from the consumer who's trying to sell the game is ridiculous on their part. If they made a game worth playing, we wouldn't be selling it. SCREW YOU EA!
       1. Adam at 9:03pm 26th August 2010 when I purchased my used 2006 cobalt last month, it came with a extended warranty GMPAC or something like that, which last till 10/2012 or 48,800 miles (car only had 14,800 @ purchase) for me too use the warranty I had to pay $50 to have it transferred into my name.. they said it was a paperwork / filing fee. I'm willing to bet sony and companies too follow will claim the same thing such as a management or database fee for the maintenance to upkeep accounts and keepings access codes / keys are kept in check.
          1. James at 9:18pm 26th August 2010 Your own fault for paying that "filing fee". It's just an extra charge they zap on to your purchase. Did you pay for them to re-detail it/clean it/rust coat it as well?
             1. guest at 12:35am 27th August 2010 No the fun part really comes in with used vehicles with taxes. Government has already made its money off the initial sale of the vehicle... why does it get to tax it again forever and a day?
28. guest at 8:04pm 26th August 2010 Game publishers won't lower the price of the games with this model. And many of them are still committed to pricing content exclusively online only with a valid "new" game. What you will have is a $60 game, with various "add ons" you will have to purchase, and now possibly have to pay a subscription in order to fully access all content on the game you purchased. The CD and Movie industry have tried to do this for years... complete control of content and distribution. It's a monopoly and if our govt. did anything right they'd intercede on behalf of the consumer to stop such practices.
29. Tom P. at 7:57pm 26th August 2010 Why not make games that people want to keep instead of crap that is only fun once?
    1. hashmaster at 7:10pm 4th September 2010 bravo
30. tat at 7:09pm 26th August 2010 This is Horrible for consumers. This idea sucks and is just another way for companies to make more money. Artists don't get paid twice when they sell their art. Why should video game publishers?
    1. Nick at 7:35pm 26th August 2010 Well said!
    2. @faviang at 8:19pm 26th August 2010 how is Sony getting paid twice when someone buy's a used game?
       1. eee at 8:51pm 26th August 2010 didn't you read the article??? wait - didn't you COMPREHEND the article??
          1. God at 12:04am 27th August 2010 As said, did you not read this! It's a load of bull! How much can they really be losing by the sales of second hand games, I mean they make the money the first time round. As stated in normal business practice if you sell something you don't continue to make a profit off the said object everytime it's re sold. I would sooner quit playing the games then pay extra.
          2. @faviang at 5:48pm 27th August 2010 lol. If someone buys a used game, Sony doesn't get any revenue from that. So if the end user pays $10 or whatever the cost is, that's the first time they see money from the second hand sale. Companies aren't allowed to make money now? Get a life.
             1. Dude at 10:09am 30th August 2010 You don't understand do you. There's a game, it has been sold, and someone didn't want it anymore so they sold it back to the store. So the first sale was full price. Now someone else is looking for that same game that was already sold once and find the used game for cheaper. Now you are right about Sony not getting money from the used game sale, but the first time it was sold at full price and Sony did get something from that. It's not that hard people, just use your brain.
                1. Yeti at 6:24am 31st August 2010 Sony is losing money. The first sale they get full price for. However, when somebody sales a game back to the store, and someone else goes in to buy said game for much cheaper, Sony loses a potential first sale for more. So yes, they are losing money.
                   1. BobSmith at 11:24am 31st August 2010 Just as when I purchase a used Honda, the Honda corporation is "losing" money on the sale. Obviously this is immoral, and I should have to pay Honda five hundred dollars when I buy the car. Obviously buying and selling used products without the original maker profiting multiple times from their sale is a source of great evil. We need to crack down on antique shops, pawn shops, and good will. Either all normal second hand sales are immoral, or video game companies think they shouldn't have the same standards apply to them as do all other products, and are greedily trying to sell their products over and over again. Either way, I'll just download it from demonoid.
                   2. hashmaster at 7:09pm 4th September 2010 The used game that the person in the store is buying would have to have been bought already, at new price, meaning sony would be making additional money for every copy of a game they sold. Now instead of just 60 dollars for the game, theyd get another 10 whenever the game some schmuk paid 60 (to them) for finds it way to gamestop and another person buys it at a lower price
31. Bojan at 7:02pm 26th August 2010 Why not. I mean that would lower the prices for used products, and if the game sucks you have not paid extra to play online, where it will still suck, if you have bought it used of course. This will destroy their business as well, since if somebody buys a new game, they know that it can be traded, but with the lower trade in value the players will not so easily buy new games, hurting the companies. But if I pay extra to play online, that game better be available to be played online for the rest of my life, otherwise I will sue the company for not providing a service I have paid for extra. If they want to make money of used games, do this, don't sell your games to places that offer trade-ins. People don't go there, Gamestop goes out of business, or stops trade-ins, everybody happy.
    1. sammytaters at 7:23pm 26th August 2010 What are you getting for that extra ten dollars? Nothing. You could get a second game in the store. Also, its Its a burden to people who bought new and are trying to sell their game back (its worth less). The online modes are the only thing the developers spend any time on. A lot of next gen FPS games have really shitty single player compared to what was on PS2 and PC in this past decade. I think this is a step in the wrong direction. THIS IS CRIPPLED DRM SOFTWARE. DON'T BUY IT.
    2. Joe Shmoe at 7:53pm 26th August 2010 Typically responses have to be well thought of not just blurted like it came out from your ass. Stupid reasoning.
    3. Hippo at 5:56am 28th August 2010 I m sure just like any other only game you will need to agree to a terms of service which will allow them to discontinue to game whenever they please. Nothing you will say will change that and if you want to play the game you will agree to the terms of service, otherwise you will have wasted the money on buying a really expensive coaster.