Sony thinking about Online Pass

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 24 August, 2010

PSP now aimed at younger audience.

Sony is considering charging to unlock online portions of its games.

The Online Pass system, as it's known, charges those who buy second hand copies of games to access content free to those who buy new.

Publishers EA and THQ have been most active with Online Pass, which many believe is an effort to combat the used games market.

Could Sony be next?

"On the principle of making online portions of the game available or unlocked from the disc-based release for a fee, we're broadly supportive of that," Sony Computer Entertainment Europe president Andrew House told GamesIndustry.biz.

"And we're exploring actively the same option for our own content."

It appears, however, that Sony is unlikely to charge gamers "for basic online play".

"That's something we have to talk about a lot more and we struggle with a little bit because we feel very vindicated and base a lot of the success of PSN today - a 70 per cent connection rate across consoles - on the fact we've removed that major initial barrier to entry," House added.

Elsewhere, House told Edge that Sony is repositioning the PlayStation Portable, now in its fifth year, so that it appeals to younger gamers.

"Five years in, we're entering a fairly mature point in its lifecycle - and a portable lifecycle is clearly a different dynamic to the one in the home," he said.

"What is now a key emphasis for us is focusing on a younger audience who are the prime audience for a dedicated gaming device with deeper, more immersive content: they may have less disposable income, but they've got more time to play.

"We're looking to mine that content library which we've assembled over the last few years and restructure the value-proposition.

"[The budget Essentials range] in its first couple of months since launch has been a phenomenal success on two fronts - not just in actual sales, but the uptake there has been on overall PSP software which has seen a knock-on effect.

"I would argue that we're starting to see what we originally intended - that it's helping to breath life into sales of the hardware as well."

Last week Eurogamer heard from various sources that Sony's PSP follow-up features touch controls on the reverse of the unit.

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (64) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Osahi #1 1 year ago

    They already did that with Modnation Racers on PSP. (Well, here in Belgium they did, so i figure they did it in the UK too?)

  • kangarootoo #2 1 year ago

    "We're looking to mine that content library which we've assembled over the last few years and restructure the value-proposition"

    Did that really come out of a human being?


    On subject, its not a huge surprise. Of all the initiatives to combat second hand sales, the whole project ten dollar type approach is the one that (for the first hand buyer) works best. And remember, as always, if you buy second hand you aren't a customer of the publisher.

  • DreadedWalrus #3 1 year ago

    How far will this go before there's a test case of some sort? I mean, it's kind of limiting our ability to sell our own games on.

    Edit: What I mean is that in a system like this, when you buy the game new you're buying the game itself, and you're buying the online access. When you sell it on you're literally not able to sell the online access, so your resale value is automatically limited by that. You can buy the online access seperately if you buy a second-hand copy, but you can't ever sell it.
    Edited by 1 at 24/08/10 @ 09:34

  • RobTheBuilder #4 1 year ago

    Actually it damages the buyer most, as it means they lose value on the game they second they open it.

    It then damages the retail stores that are the lifeblood of the console world.

    It then damages people who can't afford to buy all their games new.

    It then damages new game sales because the buyer cannot trade in as much.

    It then damages the publisher.

    Stupid rule, stupid Sony for doing it.

  • X201 #5 1 year ago

    You don't own the game, the publishers own the game, you purchased a license to play it.

    Edited by 1 at 24/08/10 @ 09:36

  • Geordiemp #6 1 year ago

    I have 2 Ps3's and I hope the on-loine pass means I dont have 2 buy a 'pass' to run my own game on a second Ps3.

    Thats what pxxxxx me off about the passes, and why i dont bother unless they are really top top game.

  • kangarootoo #7 1 year ago

    @RobTheBuilder

    I'm not sure I follow your logic. Each of your "it damages..." needs to be followed by a "because...".


    Or I could skip ahead and interpret your post myself. You suggest that the publisher will suffer because less first hand sales will take place, because people can't afford to buy new games, because the value of their trade ins has fallen. This is not true. You overlook the effect a move like this will have on first hand sales. The end result will likely be that overall first hand sales will increase. Which would of course be good for the publisher.


    Do you really think that none of the publishers doing this (and a lot of them do seem to be) have thought this through properly... but you have?

  • MyPointIs #8 1 year ago

    "a fairly mature point in its lifecycle"

    Yes, the grave.

  • icematt12 #9 1 year ago

    X201 is right, by what I understand reading the agreement at the back of manuals.

    I would rather have DLC for those that buy new, but I get why they limit the online mode. Keeping the online mode is a continuous cost, which can last for many years. DLC would have a known cut off point for development, a release date and then gets forgotten about unless alterations are incorporated into a patch.
    Edited by 1 at 24/08/10 @ 09:49

  • kangarootoo #10 1 year ago

    @Geordiemp

    First off, its probably tied to your PSN ID, so I doubt you will have an issue.

    Second, the number of players that own and use more than one PS3 is going to be a minute percentage. You can hardly hold any publisher to account for not accomodating such remote edge cases.

  • RobTheBuilder #11 1 year ago

    @Kangarootoo

    1. People with healthy wallets will buy more, people who don't will buy less, why do think there are so many used games out there? People trade in to buy new games far far more than they do for used games. What about kids who hyave to trade in to be able to reach £40 each year for Fifa / Cod etc?

    2. Iif you kill second hand games then every major retailer will have to put up prices.

    3. They have thought it through only from their point of view. "Pity us poor publishers" when all they really care about is that Game are making money that they think THEY should have. No company who logically looked at their industry or customers would try and force such a restrictive, anti competitive, cost-increasing measure on their own customers. Lest we not forget this is the same industry that forces bad DRM on legitimate buyers while pirates get round it anyway.

    4. I've not spoken to a single person on here or Kotaku that defends the online pass who isn't buying lots and lots of games and doesn't need trade in. Well you have to remember than lots and lots of people do need trade in's if they want to buy new.

  • chrisjm #12 1 year ago

    is a matchmaking server that expensive? the actual games are P2P arent they?

  • DoctorFouad #13 1 year ago

    if they do this it would be horrible...no second market for video games...

  • DoctorFouad #14 1 year ago

    if they do this it would be horrible...no second market for video games...

  • Gromit #15 1 year ago

    I don't like pirates (of software, not ooh arrr), but these greedy publishers are frankly becoming just as bad in trying to destroy the second hand market. They have already had their money, and a lot of it. They don't deserve any more!

  • des #16 1 year ago

    LOL

  • Xboxfanuk #17 1 year ago

    for a console with almost no online support as it is (ad-hoc being in most good games) and the fact the PSP is pretty much dead in the west, this could be the nail in the coffin for most.

    I would expect this to be an epic fail, like everything else in the sad history of PSP.

  • kangarootoo #18 1 year ago

    @RobTheBuilder

    1. I agree with all of your observations about how the second hand market works, but again I say this initiative will result in more first hand sales overall (or at the very least, more revenue for the publisher).

    2. Not true. The major retailers won't set prices above RRP. They still have to remain competetive with other highstreet retailers and online.

    3. What is your point? Is this becoming a moral discussion? I thought we were talking about whether this will work for the publisher or not (you said "It then damages the publisher";).

    4. Again I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not saying this move is brilliant for everyone, I'm saying its not a surprise to see it because it works for publishers.


    As always this discussion seems to be getting clouded with talk of "all they care about..." etc, like the real issue is whether publishers have a moral obligation to gamers to allow them to sell their stuff second hand. That isn't the discussion I thought I was involved in. I simply said that this approach works for publishers, and harms first hand buyers least out of all the options out there (assuming that publishers WILL do something).

  • Toothball #19 1 year ago

    Remarketing the PSP? Bleh. I've been enjoying my PSP more than my DS recently because it's not aimed at a younger audience.

  • bad09 #20 1 year ago

    "You don't own the game, the publishers own the game, you purchased a license to play it"

    Yet every single consumer I know claims "ownership" of the items they buy regardless of legal rubbish in the small print. The more publishers push this way of thinking to customers to bigger the piracy will come. Mark my words.

  • scorpius45 #21 1 year ago

    Hopefully with the PSP now being aimed at a younger audience we will see something of the PSP 2 at TGS.

  • toa_boa #22 1 year ago

    looks like Sega is getting ready to add Phantasy Star Portable 2 to the list:

    [link url=http://blogs.sega.com/usa/2010/08 /17/phantasy-star-portable-2-demo-live-on-psn/
    ]http://bl ogs.sega.com/usa/2010/08/17/pha...[/link]

    "We can also confirm how getting online will work with the full game. Each copy will come with a unique, one-time code that will be linked to your PSN Account...Once your PSN account has this code activated, you’ll be all set to go online in the full game, and your membership is good forever."

    Judging from demo impressions is worth every penny :-)

  • bad09 #23 1 year ago

    Sorry I just had to pick up one point in beemoh's post.

    the simple "used games are good for the industry" spiel is simply nonsense which doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny

    What apart from those new games whose cost is offset by said used games? Those games sold to retail by publishers to sell to consumers at 40 quid a pop. You're claiming the used market doesn't help shift those in anyway? Have you ever been in a games store?

  • kangarootoo #24 1 year ago

    @bad09

    Whilst it is true that trade in games help finance the sale of new games for some, the core point is that every traded in game is a potentially lost new sale. The sums just don't add up in favour of the publisher.

    I say again. If you are right, and all these publishers are wrong, what has caused them to suddenly and collectively lose the business sense that you apparently posess?

  • RobTheBuilder #25 1 year ago

    @kangarootoo It's both moral and business. This whole crusade is only about publishers making more money. There is no part of this that benefits customers. If we buy a product we have the right to sell it on. You don't see car manufacturers artificially restricting second hand sales, they understand it is part of a cycle. People trade in their old cars to afford a new one, people who can't afford new buy second hand.

    It's a different market but the principles are largely the same. At £40 a game, huge chunks of the market can only afford to buy new games by trading in. If you stop second hand buying you stop trade in, and you limit new releases. Yes some people will buy more new games, but remember that a lot of people try games used and then buy sequels new.

    For example: I bought PGR3 used at the same time as my 360. I liked it so bought PGR4 new at launch. Same with Forza 2/3, with Fifa 07/08. Buying used directly led to new sales, I also wouldn't have bought all three had I not been able to trade in.

    Regards prices, actually you see in financial results that second hand games provides big chunks of retailer profit (why do you think the supermarkets are going into it). If you take that profit away they have to make it back somewhere, more than likely in price increases (bear in mind most games are sold below RRP). If they can't increase prices then we can expect stores to close, reducing competition and making discounting less necessary.

  • RobTheBuilder #26 1 year ago

    @beemoh "Used games might help shift £40 new games, but new games wouldn't be as expensive as £40 if there was no used market."

    Of course they would! This whole thing is about publishers trying to get more money, trying to take money they see the stores getting. Are they going to drop their prices if there are no second hand games? Of course not!

  • bad09 #27 1 year ago

    @ kangarootoo

    I disagree that they lose sales, see it's a chain and like it or not there are more people out there unable to spend 40 pound a pop than people who can (sure there is the debate of luxury and need but people want what people want). Games have long been too expensive but publishers either ignore our cries of this or genuinely cannot do anything about that (I honestly doubt that but in no position to say either way).

    The people who buy 2nd hand won't pay the original asking price so it's not a lost sale, in the same vain every torrent is not actually a lost sale. 2nd hand actually give a gaming lifeline to many who can't afford the asking price.

    In saying that though I 100% agree high street retail have totally corrupted the long running partnership of 1st and 2nd hand, it's just a shame consumers (1st and 2nd hand buyers) are the ones to take the heat for it.

  • RobTheBuilder #28 1 year ago

    @bad9 That is exactly it. The publishers are unhappy at the retailers but keep punishing us for it. All they need to do is negotiate with them and agree to a small fee for second hand sales, but doing a THQ and telling customers that they are "cheating" by buying used is just business suicide.

  • kangarootoo #29 1 year ago

    @RobTheBuilder

    "It's both moral and business"

    Well not as far as I'm concerned. The problem being that mixing the two means people start denying plain facts because they think they are "unfair". In respect for the intelligence of everyone concerned, we should keep the two discussions separate.


    "This whole crusade is only about publishers making more money"

    I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but every business everywhere is concerned with making more money. Not just publishers, not just gaming, everyone. You think Tesco have loyalty cards for your benefit?


    "If we buy a product we have the right to sell it on"

    People keep saying that, but its just not true. You can perhaps argue about owning the disc (in fact you have simply purchased a license to use, but I'm sure you don't accept that, despite it being a fact), but the system being discussed has an online element that a second owner has no right to.

  • ruined #30 1 year ago

    I think a point worth considering is that this scheme has only just started popping up despite people trading games for years. Ebay, Computer Exchange they were all left alone so you need to consider why publishers are suddenly doing this.

    The answer is simple, retail is agressively pursuing pre-owned due to the increased profit margins. These days you go into a game store and next to the new releases are 'buy this second hand from' stickers, you take the box up to the counter and the server tells you that 'you can buy it second hand cheaper', even posters in the shop windows advertise the second hand prices. Retail is attacking new game sales which is obviously why publishers are taking exception.

    Besides the game stores are hardly knights in shining armour. They make about 40% profit on every new game you buy. They then buy it back and make mark-up on it second hand 2-3 times a copy. They don't give a stuff about the gamer either it is just the bottom line and how to pad it.

  • RobTheBuilder #31 1 year ago

    @Kangarootoo I'm sorry but though I respect your opinion I have to fundamentally disagree with your points there. Of course business is about making money, but this isn't about running a business better or new financial opportunity. This is like banks putting interest rates up artificially.

    You can't seperate moral from business. I am not ignoring any of the facts here. Others may do, I am not. All business is a conflict between morals and profit, this is too far one way.

    We buy a licence only because last time publishers tried to do this we didn't stop them. If I can no longer resell my games I won't buy them, simple as.

  • RobTheBuilder #32 1 year ago

    Besides. This whole debate can be summed up in one sentence.

    Sony / THQ / EA - If you are unhappy with second hand sales, for god's sake talk to the retailers and stop punishing your end customers.

  • kangarootoo #33 1 year ago

    @RobTheBuilder

    I don't disagree with you on the moral front. I buy games too, and I trade them in. But we have to keep the two discussions seperate. We can't combine "will this increase publishers' profits" with "is this fair for gamers", the two subjects are like oil and water. We end up with people arguing that publishers will lose out simply because they WANT that to be the truth.

  • RobTheBuilder #34 1 year ago

    @kangarootoo That's not true though. It's like saying we can't discuss BP's safety and environmental records when talking about their profits. Morals are a fundamental part of all business and all profits. Especially when in this case increased profits (supposedly) are directly related to a reduction in morals and fairness in gaming. How much depends on your view, but they are still directly related.

  • Toothball #35 1 year ago

    @toa_boa

    Yeah, Sega had that in the Japanese release earlier this year. Presumably they'd like to offset some of the costs of running the servers for the online part, since there's no subscription or anything like that involved.

  • RobTheBuilder #36 1 year ago

    As well as it has been handled here, this topic has opened a wider Eurogamer debate though: The way people are using the +/- scores is starting to annoy me.

    Instead of commenting on the attitude and sense of the poster, it's simply become about "I agree with this" or "I disagree with this" which means that a polite and considered opinion can be negged out just because a few people disagree with it.

    This needs changing.

  • randompanda #37 1 year ago

    So the PSN will still be free to use - but you can't play any bloody games on it unless you pay a fee to use them...

    This generation's a fucking nightmare.

  • kangarootoo #38 1 year ago

    @beemoh

    Great post. This in particular...

    "the higher a new price is, the higher the used price can be, and it's important for retailers to keep used prices high to keep margins high. Since used games need to be cheaper than new ones, otherwise it's a waste of time, new prices need to be kept up."


    @RobTheBuilder

    Well, let me put it a different way (and this doesn't apply to you, as it happens). I know that some people in this discussion (now, and when the subject has come up previously) have structured posts to suggest that a system such as this is not profitable for publishers, purely because they don't WANT it to be profitable for publishers (because they don't want publishers to pursue it).

    That sort of thing gets my goat. I want to be able to fly, but that desire won't make me deny gravity. I try to deal in truths and facts, and in this case I firmly believe that various publishers have done their homework on this one. Whether I as a gamer LIKE that fact is irrelevant.

    I suppose the patronising truth is that I accept, if we are careful to seperate fact from feeling, we can indeed mix the two subjects in a debate. I just don't, based on what I observe every time this discussion comes up, trust people to do it.

    How many times have we seen an armchair critic state boldly "its obvious..." and then follow on by relaying some pearl of wisdom that is obvious to the poster but has somehow escaped the attention of the profoundly successful coporations in question? Now sometimes (patronisation begins again here), the poster is just an idiot. But often as not the poster has previously shown they are pretty smart, to which I can only conclude they are simply not being honest with their opinion.

    Whether I want project ten dollar and its like to succeed is a preference. Whether I think it WILL succeed is (I would hope, (insofar as I am capable) a reasoned and objective deduction. If we can keep the two distinct, then hurrah. History suggests not.

  • kangarootoo #39 1 year ago

    @RobTheBuilder

    I agree about the +/- btw, and I don't use it that way.

  • kangarootoo #40 1 year ago

    Christ, I'm like a dog with a bone today. I think I might bale out. I'm feeling like I'm being far too superior and pious on this one, and its not good.

  • RobTheBuilder #41 1 year ago

    @beemoh Good idea

    @Kangarootoo On that I agree. It's all about the facts, and using them to make an opinion. It annoys me when people use opinion to make facts...

  • chessboxer #42 1 year ago

    @ randompanda

    "So the PSN will still be free to use - but you can't play any bloody games on it unless you pay a fee to use them...

    This generation's a fucking nightmare."

    Did you even read the article? Check out the 2nd sentence...

  • randompanda #43 1 year ago

    Yes I did, but for most of us - the second hand market's the only way we'll get to a decent quantity of games due to something called "money" It's essentially tantamount to disabling online content unless you're willing to wait until a title goes platinum or activate it (once) through DLC.

    Hooray.

  • layleeloo #44 1 year ago

    I wholeheartedly support this decision by any developer or manufacturer. I'm sick of the skinflints who wait for everything to go cheap rather than actually paying for a great product worthy of its price tag. Lesser games comes down in price anyway so you can wait for them to drop and still buy then new as opposed to second hand for a cheaper price. Anything to protect the industry is worthwhile

  • RobTheBuilder #45 1 year ago

    @layleeloo In that case:

    1. You clearly don't understand what it's like for people who have little spare cash to throw at £40 games

    2. You don't understand the game market very well

  • RobTheBuilder #46 1 year ago

    @Milky1985 Agreed.

  • layleeloo #47 1 year ago

    People keep going on about it damaging the second hand market. So what? We never used to have a second hand market for this of us who have beegaming door 25 years.

    The PC market has no second hand portion to it, yet they don't moan. Fair enough their games are a little cheaper but most games drop in price after a while anyway so all you have to do is wait a bit to get new games cheaper. It's not like there's a huge second hand market for games on day 1 anyway so theres no issue in waiting a while. Second hand market is over rated and over relied on by the public who want great products for next to nothing and personally think things would be better without the 2nd market. If you appreciate games and how much foes into making them, then save a few more pennies and buy games new. Having a few new great games is far better than having many second hand mediocre games

  • layleeloo #48 1 year ago

    @ robthebuilder

    Having been buying games for over 25 years I have a decent understanding thank you. Having fewer great games which you bought new, is better than having many mediocre games you got on the cheap. Support your industry rather than trying to fleece it

  • bratmandu #49 1 year ago

    Now what are the fanboys gonna say to 360 owners?? Ah well, at least it still plays blu rays - so you can watch all the blu rays that everyone buys all the time....

  • RobTheBuilder #50 1 year ago

    @layleeloo Clearly not, there has always been used games. They used to be on market stalls (c64/amiga/snes/md), then they were in Cash converters and the like.

    I've been buying and selling games for 20 years, it's been there at least that long. But it's increased because the cost of games has increased.

    You are doing exactly what the publishers are doing and not considering all sides. It's not that simple for people with less money. It's hardly fleecing publishers, the games have been bought and sold on just like any other product. Yet they are trying to fleece us to stop a legitimate trade. It's anti-competitive.

    All they need to do is talk to retailers about a re-sale fee.

  • ignatiusjreilly #51 1 year ago

    Regarding minus votes - they have to remain, and I think they were the main point of the karma system in the first place, because they hopefully stop the spammers and the worst trolls from showing up in the comments for unregistered users.

    Agreed that a neg vote should be for something that adds nothing to the discussion, not for posts you disagree with, but it's hard to enforce that anywhere as the users have to understand the concept and stick with it. EG does better than many places at least.

    edit: On topic - bring on digital distribution with low new game prices. The sooner that rolls around, the better.
    Edited by 1 at 24/08/10 @ 14:33

  • Kaminari #52 1 year ago

    Charging second-hand buyers for added-value content like online access or multiplayer gaming (eg. Uncharted 2) is absolutely normal, as long as the "unlock" fee is reasonable (ie. $10 in my opinion is NOT). Some other studios like BioWare will charge you for actually being able to *install* your used game. You've got as many different approaches to the issue as there are game studios.

    The Sony approach so far is the most reasonable one (in principle), and it still respects the fundamental right for consumers to buy second-hand products. Of course now, it depends on the price they are asking for their online pass...

  • bad09 #53 1 year ago

    "The PC market has no second hand portion to it"

    Kinda why it's rare for me to spend 30 notes (and NEVER spend over 30) and why Steam sales are king.

  • dingo75 #54 1 year ago

    The younger folks downloaded all the games already Sony.


    "If we buy a product we have the right to sell it on"

    People keep saying that, but its just not true. You can perhaps argue about owning the disc (in fact you have simply purchased a license to use, but I'm sure you don't accept that, despite it being a fact), but the system being discussed has an online element that a second owner has no right to.

    It doesn't matter what the publisher thinks as long as the vast majority of buyers are of this opinion!
    They either have to massively enforce this (by strict DRM), general education reaching a lot of said people OR suck it up and live with it.
    Edited by 1 at 24/08/10 @ 14:56

  • Paulie_P #55 1 year ago

    I have to say this is the best comments thread I have read on Eurogamer in a long time. I haven't taken part in the argument/discussion myself as I fear I would only say something that would make me appear stupid besides RobTheBuilder has already put across similar points (and a lot more) that I woul'dve made so I would only be reiterating stuff that has already been said.

    As for the +/-, I have +ed people I agree with but only if they make a good argument (i.e RobTheBuilder) but I have not -ed people like kangarootoo as although I've disagreed with them, they make a good case and while not convincing me to change my mind, have made me think more carefully on the subject. -'s are saved for the trolls.
    Edited by 1 at 24/08/10 @ 15:00

  • MrChuckles #56 1 year ago

    I going to wander in with my usual point that everyone who moans forgets when the Online Pass system is discussed.

    A second hand game is going to be worth LESS money after this system goes into place, therefore second hand sales will make you LESS money but second hand purchases will also cost you LESS money. If you like the second hand game you buy then you can pay the extra $10 to the publisher and it'll probably cost in total what the current second hand price is anyway. So in the case, second hand game buyers will be able to buy and play more games, and just pay extra for the ones they like. Also publishers get more money per sale. The loser is GAME, which to me, sounds perfect.

  • MrChuckles #57 1 year ago

    The fairest way to deliver to games, and hopefully we are only a few years away from this...

    All games are released as free demos. Players then try them out and pay extra for every element they want to unlock. To unlock the whole game costs £40, but if you want just COD MP, that'll be £20 for example. None of it can be resold. No one gets ripped off, no one wants to sell any games as they have only bought what they have played a demo of and enjoyed. Publishers get every penny from the players, and know exactly what part of their games are popular so make their new games around that.

    Oh, and all high street stores go bankrupt. Huzzah!

  • RobTheBuilder #58 1 year ago

    @Mr Chuckles It's a good point. But I'm not convinced of it. Reduction in trade in value will reduce use of trade ins on new games, reducing supply and putting up prices probably.

    @Paulie_P Agreed, it's been good. I disagree with some people but most have made points well.

    @beemoh I didn't say it was an overall positive, but it has more positive than negative.
    It would be workable, all the games go through the sales channel so it's only the same as selling a new title really.

  • layleeloo #59 1 year ago

    @ milky1985 & robthebuilder

    Some balanced argument here which is good.

    I agree with some of your points, but you can not ignore that a heck of a lot of people never actually buy a game new. Wheter 2nd hand sales contributes somewhat or not to the developers does not negate the fact that some people never buy brand new games and therefore, are never really giving the developers full support, or as much as they should.

    I do see both sides - I understand that not everyone can afford every game new, but I had this debate with a mate of mine when he bought an xbox, and within 3 months had around 70 games. All bought cheap etc. I explained to him he would get more value for money, and the industry would if he bought fewer games brand new which were great, rather than a shed load of cheap mediocre games.

    Thankfully he agree and now has a PS3 and 360 like myself and does what I do. But I also know a heck of a lot of people who could not tell me the last time they bought a brand new game. They too use the argument they cant afford new games, but they buy twice as many games as I do. So, rather than buying 4 second hand games a month, just buy 2 brand new - works out the same or similar (if you are buying fairly recent second hand games that is).

    So it is to these people which I whole heartedly support any move by developers to earn more money from them. Becasue there are those people who reap the benefits from playing such astonishing games like Gears 2, Uncharted 2 etc - which they got for about a tenner and it sickens me that these people (who never buy any games brand new) repeatedly play such quality manufactured art, for pittence.
    Edited by 2 at 24/08/10 @ 18:19

  • super_monty #60 1 year ago

    If Sony and Microsoft keep pissing me off with by over charging for downloadble content and crappy/unfair ways of getting me to part with my cash. I will turn to copied games, and for the next gen I will get a gaming PC. Simple.

  • Nephirion #61 1 year ago

    It is fairly simple the more popular gaming becomes the more publisher and share holders will demand bigger profits and therefore the unit price will rise. The second hand market helps to keep a cap on new prices and in a sense regulate rrp and offer a cheaper alternative to buying new. If the second hand market is removed the sure it will mean less people playing and paying for day one releases and more expensive games due to the increase in demand. Piracy will also increase alongside the publisher ever wishing to offset the " so called " loss from piracy by increasing the rrp.

  • layleeloo #62 1 year ago

    @ designerheadache. I concur!

  • SG79 #63 1 year ago

    @ Super Monty

    You might as well give up gaming because questionable DLC's and whatnot aren't limited to hardware manufacturers obviously, and PC gaming won't be and isn't immune. The worst example is Capcom's upcoming Case Zero, and they've stated that more "paid demos" will be underway should it be successful.
















  • RobTheBuilder #64 1 year ago

    @layleeloo True. But the question is whether people with limited finances will turn to new games or move to piracy, and if they do move to 'new' games, I can't see them buying at full price.