Top
300°

Is free PSN dead?

Do passes and premium-tier services threaten Sony's network?

Read Full Story >>
computerandvideogames.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Kran2507d ago

No. If it didnt years ago when all this started, it won't now.

Nitrowolf22507d ago (Edited 2507d ago )

Nope. Unless you buy new it's still free. Plus not all games use it yet. Also doesn't the xbox 360 have online passes to?
http://www.ea.com/1/ds2-onl...

Online passes are still a terrible idea.

jaosobno2507d ago (Edited 2507d ago )

Well I hope it remains free. I don't wanna pay 50-60$ for online play and then additional 50$ for some type of premium service like COD Elite (like X360 owners do).

It's just too much, so keep online play free Sony!

PRHB HYBRiiD2507d ago

cod elite is free i think but the premium elite cost like 50 bucks but u can play online with the free one.

CynicalVision2507d ago

'Online passes are still a terrible idea.'

I disagree, if you worked as a developer you'd be thinking differently. Why is it okay for consumers to pay less than half for a used game but still have access to everything that people who pay $60 have?

Surely you agree that it's unfair considering these people spend years developing a game, spending millions of dollars and having to pay for the upkeep of servers.

They have to make they money back somehow, it's only fair for them to implement an online pass. Otherwise what's the incentive to keep making games?

Eromu2507d ago

"Why is it okay for consumers to pay less than half for a used game but still have access to everything that people who pay $60 have? "

Why is it okay for consumers to pay less than half for a used car but still have access to everything that people who pay $20k+ have?

LightofDarkness2507d ago

Sorry, CynicalVision, one cannot be so flippant when considering the repercussions that services and restrictions like these have on the entire concept of ownership.

xer02507d ago

Well both iTunes and Valves Steam is free - so, do I think free access to online markets is dead... that's a big fat NO.

BrutallyBlunt2507d ago

@jaosobno
PSN will remain free. The basic services will not change. Sony may put the focus now on Plus with any new services but the core ability to play online will continue to be free on the Playstation 3. Sony will toy with the idea of keeping that core experience free on the Playstation 4 so it will be interesting if it remains free. Right now there is a shift happening testing the market with things like the Elite service for Call of Duty, online passes and other revenue based services like Plus.

@Eromu
Bad analogy. A car depreciates over time and costs money to keep up the maintenance. So in my view it is only right for those hosting the online services to be funded some way and buying used means no money is going to the publishers who run the matchmaking services and everything else needed to host the games online.

PirateThom2507d ago

Here's the problem with ownership of software. Quite simply, you don't. You own a licence to use the software, which the publisher can revoke at any time (in fact if your account is blocked on PSN, XBox Live or Steam you lose access to any downloaded content and the only reason this wouldn't hold true for a disc is because it's physical, doesn't mean they can't block access to portions of it though).

I, honestly, have no real issue with it, because I only buy games new HOWEVER and this is the big problem, this needs to extend to cover more than one system and user account because I have no doubt there's people with multiple PS3s and PS3 users in the same household it should be like PSN content, ability to activate on 5 systems, covers all users on that system.

DragonKnight2507d ago

@CynicalVision: Why should developers get paid twice for the same game they already got paid for?

They sell all their copies to a retailer, thus get paid for each and every copy. Why then should they get paid again because someone decides to return a copy that the RETAILER paid for (and sold to the consumer) and decides to resell? The developer relinquishes their right to additional profit once they sell the physical copy to the retailer. It would be different if their game was DL only but that isn't the case.

If I sell someone a tv, I don't have the right to demand that they give me the full value cost of the tv if they decide to then sell it to someone else.

badz1492507d ago

the basis of PSN is free online play which the 360 doesn't have! online pass and such has nothing to do with free PSN. it's just a way devs recouping profit from 2nd hand markets. what Sony is and will be doing for PS+ is totally up to them as they have to keep they paying gamers happy by adding more stuff to the service. but as long as the online play stays free, why complaint? want more services? pay for PS+, end of story!

Nitrowolf22507d ago (Edited 2507d ago )

@CynicalVision

Technically Retailers bought the games. We are not buying games directly from them (Devs) unless of course it's their own shop.

And are you guys forgetting something? This isn't just for online. RAGE will be having an online pass for single player content. So the matter for running matchmaking and such isn't even a reason why they do it.

I understand developers want more money, but if they are going to start charging for Online then at least do this. Offer a trail before you make anyone purchase the dam thing. Like what Homefront does where you can only reach a certain level and then you can't progress anymore. If they are going to offer and online pass then give me a reason to buy it instead of having me go in blind without knowing whether I want the online or not.

Also why should they be charging for the game online? As much as I like dislike COD for being the same at least they aren't making you pay online. Why? Because the support is there. You know whats even worse? the fact that most developers today has paid DLC on launch day of games. If I am going to pay for Online pass at least have the game packed with all this content cause DLC isn't a thing they make in a day and in most cases is thought up before the game is even released.

DirtyLary2507d ago

They are a great idea. Gamestop and used sales are to blame. Devs and Publishers now get a piece of used games sales.

Tanir2507d ago

if 360 still has online passes........thats just reaaaaaaally bad.

in regards to online passes i believe that the online pass should register to your serial number on the ps3, not just the username, but at the same time should register to your username aswell incase you have another ps3.

its the most logical and fair thing to do

Pixel_Pusher2507d ago

fear mongering at it's worst.

SonyStyled2507d ago

EA, THQ, Disney Interactive, Sony and Ubisoft are the publishers that i know of that implement the online pass. Ubisoft being the latest about a month or so ago

+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 2507d ago
Hisiru2507d ago (Edited 2507d ago )

I don't think online pass is a bad idea because it's good against pre-owned games. What is really bad is DRM.

And how can online pass go against free psn? If you buy new games you won't have any problems.

mixelon2507d ago

I too think online passes are a good idea. Everyone saying it screws with the idea of ownership is missing the point I think.

Pre-owned games do nothing to pay for the upkeep of the multiplayer infrastructure, matchmaking servers etc. If you want to play on their systems using their bandwidth it's fair you pay a little. You don't *own* online functionality.

Philoctetes2507d ago

Agreed. Online passes don't have anything to do with "free PSN." These are just a way for developers to recoup some revenue from the used game market. Those of us who are buying our games new still aren't paying a penny for online play.

LightofDarkness2507d ago

Technically, online passes are DRM. It's "Digital Rights Management", and by definition it's simply a term to describe access control technologies. Online passes ARE access control technology.

FACTUAL evidence2507d ago

@CynicalVision

I see where you;re coming from, but let's be real. When you buy a used game, you're not paying less than half of what the game was shipped for....let's say gamestop for an example, if you buy a used game that's a month old, you'd have to pay 53$ still. That's not even including the tax.

iamnsuperman2507d ago

That is Gamestop's problem. n used games nothing goes back to the developer. Gamestop gets all $53. They are protecting their investment of a game they made and stopping gamestop from making a major profit. It has nothing to do with paying less than half. Its about them making money of games that cost millions to make. I think I am one of few who actually sees what the online pass is. It may not be good for us but what is £5 here or there. If you want to support gamestop and not the developer fine but then do not play online which has running costs

DragonKnight2507d ago

Again, the developer got all the support they technically deserve when they sold the game to retailers. Why should developers get that $53 when a second disk isn't being sold? It's the same disk that was originally bought. It's the same disk that the devs sold to the retailer and were paid for. So why should they get paid twice, thrice, or 4 times for the same copy? They didn't put any effort into putting the game on the damn disk too did they? There isn't any new content being added to a used game is there? So explain it to me?

iamnsuperman2507d ago (Edited 2507d ago )

@dragonknight. Its not just that. Why should gamestop get hude profit from a game they could have originaly sold. It is very profitable the re sale market for places like gamestop. With online, which cost money and man power to run expanding a game people are enjoying the on line experience without paying to the developers. This is more of a problem with online games being improved

DragonKnight2507d ago

You're not understanding something here. Used game sales DO NOT impact online because there is NOT an additional user, it is merely a transference. If I traded my game in to gamestop, they have my copy. They then sell that copy to another person. I can't use that copy anymore, but someone is in my place. This has no burden on the online infrastructure as no additional member has been added, and the developer has already been paid for the game with their original sale to gamestop.

This is purely based on greed. Developers want to be paid more than once for one copy of a game. Used game sales in no way hurt them in any arena. Not additional users, not loss of revenue, nothing.

Hicken2506d ago

Well said, Dragon Knight. Bubbles up.

I've been trying to explain that to people since I joined this site; they just can't seem to wrap their heads around it, though. They want to believe it hurts developers, but what it REALLY does it hurt ownership rights: no matter what you paid, you only own HALF the game until you pay the developers. Even though they've already been paid for the copy of the game you own- including the half they won't let you play- you have to pay them again to play the whole thing. And at any time, they can choose to no longer support that game, thus meaning your payment grants you nothing.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2506d ago
KingPin2507d ago

agreed.

or they will be sued again.

because when they advertised the console it was with free online play. now they taking away an advertised feature which is why most of ps3 gamers went with sonys console.

i think even sony know this.

iamnsuperman2507d ago (Edited 2507d ago )

I really do not get what this article is trying to say. Surely extra paid services is a plus for the PSN because unlike its competitor the user doesn't all ready have to pay for a subscription. The PSN has that option to play free online which is always attractive to a consumer I can see a tier system in the future. Basic online free option extra cost money

One-X2507d ago

Believe it or not, Sony has a premium-tier service too... Plus I don't know many that'd take a premium paying service over a free one that works just as well.

Free, well to me, is attractive. If I looked at PS3 and knew I had to pay so much every year just to talk to my friends or play games I want, then I wouldn't be so happy with the service.

Ocean2507d ago

Next Gen who knows...but not this consoles lifecycle

Show all comments (67)
The story is too old to be commented.