Diehard GameFAN: Why I Almost Pulled The SOCOM Review

Diehard GameFAN writes: "Last Friday, I reviewed the new PSP game SOCOM: U.S. Navy Seals Fireteam Bravo 3. I gave it a fairly positive write-up, and had no problems getting into the online component of the game, even if there was a sparse number of people due to my review going up before the game's release. With that said, I haven't picked the game up since I finished it last week."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
n4gn4gn4gn4g3382d ago (Edited 3382d ago )

A. Do you pull reviews for other games that subsequently come out with DLC that you pay for that you know damned well is on the disc?

B. Do you pull reviews of any other game that charges you to play online? I suppose you don't review any Xbox games then right?

Listen...the price of the game includes online (if your and Xbox owner think of it this way: the price of the game includes LIVE online game access for the rest of your ownership term) for the original purchaser. Subsequent purchasers must purchase their own online licence ( Xbox terms the subsequent owner has to pay for their own live access). It makes perfect sense and is disclosed on the UMD case.

If you are going to start working PRICE and functions available to USED buyers into your reviews go ahead.

FaSeCeX3382d ago

yah lets startin docking points because a company wants to profit...

lol boo didnt tell me they were gonna do this..they lied to me! (did they really?)

wat a baby

Blaze9293382d ago (Edited 3382d ago )

lmao sony defense force much? Calm the hell down. It's just his opinion and you have to admit, paying $20 for the online access is a bit ridiculous. I'd understand $5-$10 but $20? Come on. No matter how you may try to twist it, that's just wrong. It's not so much fighting piracy that measure is taking but also fighting you possibly getting the game any other way than buying it new. No borrowing, renting, buying used, nothing. You can't even sell the game now for good trade-in value if you wanted becuase people know they won't get multiplayer without paying $20 extra.

Anon19743382d ago

Seriously. You review a game, then consider pulling the review because of people who buy the game used have to buy a code? What on earth does that have to do with the quality of the game?

The PSP is a pirate favorite. That's no secret and because of that Sony is trying new measures to combat this piracy. This isn't pretty, but neither is stealing games. And consider this, if Sony really wanted to go after the used games business they could. Back before the PS3 launched they patented a system that would make you have to register your PS3 games on your console before playing, and from that point on the games would only play on your console and no one else's. Thankfully they never implemented this tech, but in a world where any 10 year old with an internet connection can pirate most games, the industry needs to adapt to survive.

hazelamy3381d ago

maybe because this kind of invasive drm runs roughshod over consumers.
like that joke of a system ubisoft are introducing.
you support this on consoles and the next thing is we'll have ubi's system there too.
it's about making a stand and saying this is unacceptable, maybe you'll be glad when everything is like onlive and you don't own anything and you'll be happy having to pay every time you want to play, but not everybody does.
because that's where this is leading.
and what if this is introduced on the home consoles?
only one user can use it, many consoles are in houses where there are multiple gamers, they suffer there.
the reviewer didn't go far enough if you ask me, but he acted with his convictions.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3381d ago
Jdoki3382d ago (Edited 3382d ago )


Since when did games get reviewed based on their suitability to be bought second hand!?

EDIT: And when are these sites gonna grow some balls. If they have such high principles then retract the review. Don't whine about almost retracting a review!!

n4gn4gn4gn4g3382d ago

Well since the SDF was proven to be a bunch of Xbox, I'm not from the SDF. about you focus on the article instead of me.

And all your 'issues' are handled by the fact that it CLEARLY states these terms on the UMD box.

FragGen3380d ago

UMD Box: Yeah that helps those who preordered and were not informed a ton! :) And of course everyone reads the fine print on the box when buying a friggin game! ;)

plumber153382d ago

i hope the make a socom 4 for ps3

FragGen3380d ago (Edited 3380d ago )

It affects the consumer. I sure as hell want to know about it before I buy the product.

And I was certainly surprised and disappointed with it, I actually considered pre-ordering this and was glad I didn't. The online component being $20 compulsory DLC thing is complete BS and is mostly about f*cking up the used market to increas Sony's profit margins.

It's nice to see someone advocating the consumer's right to a decent product without stealth inclusion of intrusive DRM rather than jumping on the "Pirates R BAD!!?! I (heart) giant corporate middle men who price gouge digitall delivered content!" bandwagon. You want devs to make more money? Have Sony and the other middle men that stand between them and the consumer reduce THEIR exorbitant cut of the software sales pie.

EA is the company that is doing this stuff right: they are giving non-essential bonus DLC to original purchasers to encourage new software sales rather than withholding advertised game features as DLC.