PS Pass complaints and Resistance 3 - Rational responses to complaints

As many of you probably know Sony has announced its very own PS pass which is going to be implemented into some first party games. In short this is very similar to THQs or Ubisoft online pass, to play multiplayer a code has to be activated this comes with the game when buying new but you have to pay for this pass if you have a second hand copy *gasp*

Yes this is the issue that has been getting so many people whining. So lets go over a few things and look at this rationally to why this is not such a huge crisis. Starting with Resistance 3 in which this pass system is being started with here are a few things that I feel need clearing up or just explaining to some people about this. It is all my opinion but a rational outlook and any comments and corrections or your own opinions just comment after reading I'll reply asap

1) Boycotting. So lets start with some comments about Resistance 3 I've seen things like "if they don't get rid of this I wont be buying" this is a pointless boycott. Let me redefine the point that you only will need a pass if your buying it second hand, when buying new its no different than buying every other game and wont cost any extra. That leaves people who are planning to buy day 1 or just new no reason to boycott and those who were planning to buy second hand and now don't want to because of the online pass will actually have no effect what so ever. If people believe boycotting buying second hand games will somehow convince Sony to stop this pass then there going to be sorely mistaken. Therefore I don't see how people are going to boycott R3.

2) Tank/Flop. My second point is also based on a comment I read this one was suggesting that Resistance 3 will actually tank and suffer purely based off of this PS pass. As mentioned before buying new doesn't effect the price of the game and requires minimal extra effort, it may discourage second hand sales but that's not going to make R3 tank or flop as second hand sales aren't counted and don't actually give the developer money anyway. The comment did suggest also that people wont buy the game new because they wont be able to sell it later because of this pass. While this is quite an indirect worry it could happen if stores will not buy the game off you. However I don't see how they wont, a game store deals in games, chances are the store clerk may not even know about the pass system time will tell on this one but again I don't see the masses doing this

3) Milking gamers. Another general idea going round is that this is just another way for a big company to make more money out of us gamers. While this part is actually kinda true in the fact that us gamers will be paying a bit more money its for the benefit of the online service being given to us. The same reason why people argue that Xbox Live is better than PSN. This way more money go to the developers as they actually get something from second hand sales. I don't think the companies are doing this just because they can but because its a more financially viable business model that allows for these big budget games

4) Blame. This one is directly related to R3 and Insonamniac games as the article that caused this blog was one where they were taking a lot of hits from gamers because of this and its totally unjust. It's Sony's idea and even they shouldn't be blamed as its a trend in the market and a lot of online games now have a similar thing (and are receiving a fair amount of hate on there own) but whining and complaining is not helping

5) Principle. So here I actually agree with others when annoyed about this part, the principle of buying a game and then having to pay to do everything on it. This is annoying but unfortunately how it goes with several things, hell if I could pay for the online only for certain games I would but it doesn't work like that. I cant defend this one so much but it is for the benefit of the developers and not just greed

Hope this has helped balance and cleared up a few things about the PS pass and this is a open site so comments and debates are encouraged but keep it mature if you can and thanks for reading

[Nate-Dog]

This pass business is getting a bit annoying in general in my opinion, although I can see the point of view from some companies and why they're doing it. But for the likes of EA and Sony, no I don't think it's very fair since they're more than big enough and are already well-off enough to not desperately need it (I mention Sony since as you say I don't think this is all down to Insomniac despite the fact that everyone is blaming them, Sony are the ones that have said this will appear on a number of their games, not just Insomniac ones for example). If Sony are the ones thinking they are losing out a bit in this respect why don't they get some people in that actually know how to advertise a game and then push on advertising for their titles? Certain PS exclusives tend to sell pretty poorly because Sony don't have a single clue how to advertise and don't care for paying for it despite the dividends it can pay off when done correctly. If you're saying second-hand sales are that threatening then give people a reason to go out and get the game on release or around the time when it's new, otherwise you leave people to say "ah I don't really care about it, maybe I'll get it second-hand later on cheaper if I need something new".

The problem I have with it is that these companies keep saying "this doesn't affect anyone that buys the game new" when it does. If I buy it new, fine I have the code for when I want to play on my account. But what about if I have another PS3 in the house and want to play it there or want to allow whoever owns that console to play the game online on their account? What about if I want to bring the game to a friend's house and want to play online there? As far as I know not all these online passes work within sub accounts on the same system either (I think I saw someone here mention that the MK9 pass works on sub accounts, can't say that I know whether other passes definitely do or do not work that way aswell).

[PhoenixDevil]

I'm no financial adviser but I think Sony may look at each game on its own turning a profit rather than the whole playstation section, so if they project R3 to get low profits this maybe for that however I do very much agree that advertising needs to be used more it is a much better way of getting sales and keeping customers happy

Good point about something I didn't consider, I have no idea on the details but I can see it being truly annoying if it is purely account based n wont work for other people on the same system n the hassle of having multiple PS3s or going to a friends, its certainly not perfect, I can see the annoyances but we'll have to wait n see just how it actually goes

[SilentNegotiator]

"Rational" nothing. You don't even look at the other angles, just the defensive position of "You're sore because you can't buy used"

The real problem is losing more customer rights. I want to play the multiplayer on MY copy of the game, on any console/account that I want. But now we have this DRM BS. One of the big three has just made precedent for a form of console DRM. If you don't see the problem here, you need to re-examine the situation.

[ClimateKaren]

@SilentNegotiator
Very well said. Just because someone calmly supports a narrow-minded view doesn't mean that it's a rational one.

Aside from the problem this causes for households with multiple PS3s in them, there is another issue that I'm concerned about after playing Fight Night Champion, which incorporates EA's similar online-play policy. That problem is that the online player pool is going to be a bit emptier. In a period of console gaming where it seems like most games that come out have an online component, there are certain games that see less activity than others. Even the more heavily played online titles will see a decline in activity after a while, and when most people put a game down they're done with it for good. The reality is that people will sell their games, and if when a game changes hands someone needs to pay an extra $10 to play their cheap used game online, the chances of them coughing it up is slim. Each one of those is a potential player to keep the community for a game alive, and without them online activity for games will dwindle more rapidly than it would otherwise. No big deal to the devs and publishers, maybe even an asset, as their half-assed sequels with few improvements are more likely to sell quickly. For gamers though, it's a serious inconvenience.

[PhoenixDevil]

@FredEffinChopin & SilentNegotiator
Sorry to argue but this post is rational, specifically rational in response to some of the outspoken comments based on this topic. Search up the definition of rational and it will b something along the lines of calm and agreeable to reason, which is exactly what this post is

So if I'm only looking at the defensive position why do I say that I cannot well defend the principle section, what I did was rationalise it. I don't like the idea of having to pay for a used game and then the MP either but in being 'agreeable to reason' I can see that the developers and publishes are doing this to make a more viable business plan. I agree that DRM is a pain in the ass and while PC has huge piracy its probably not as useful for consoles and an annoyance but it was only a matter of time one of the big 3 started it and do not be surprised if its an standard for every MP next gen. Its not that I don't see whats happening or that it can be a problem but it is accepting that it is happening and trying to make people see its not the end of the world

I know there's going to be problems its nothing I deny, the worry is very real about the MP games drying up a lot sooner and honestly I don't know what to suggest this may actually make devs think about not putting in a MP aspect which could be a good and a bad thing but its too early to see any major ramifications of these online passes

If there are any other concerns of the validity of the blog or more you want to add then please reply or send me a PM

[ClimateKaren]

Yes, but if you're calmly defending the position in the face of indisputable opposing evidence, it's no longer rational. That's not to insult you, and I see the way it looked in my last one, but I feel like you're brushing over all the inconveniences and still coming to the conclusion that it isn't that bad. Some of your points in the blog post acknowledge downsides, and then downplay them. It's like beaten wife who tells the cops that her husband didn't mean any harm and that she started it. She just rationalized, but nothing about it was rational. There is a distinction between the two.

1 & 2. Point out the pointlessness of a boycott of Resistance, and that Resistance won't be a flop. While not openly supporting the online pass, the comments/points are wholly in retaliation to justly annoyed people.

3. Acknowledges the fact that this is being used to milk gamers for a little money, then justifies it by saying it'll go for a better experience. That flat out isn't true. Fight Night Champion is THE most broken online game I've ever played. Hit up the forums, you'll find loads of posts from unsatisfied customers who can't get through a session of online gaming without their system freezing or fights timing out, often discrediting one user for quitting. The community has already dwindled too, and the game isn't even that old. The XBL analogy doesn't work either, because the main feature that people pay for is online gaming, which is free everywhere else but XBL. The features might've been a selling point, but since PSN has beefed up its services, all you're really getting for your money at XBL is cross game chat. Aside from all of that though, XBL is a service for one gamer. We're talking about ALL games' online communities being effected by each games' limited accessibility to used disc owners.

4. Places the blame on one party over the other. Still doesn't speak for the reasoning behind the move, and just makes one person an asshole over the other. Whether it's Sony or Insomniac is irrelevant to gamers.

5. Completely acknowledges AND sides with disgruntled gamers.....

I really don't understand how this overall stance is in favor of the pass system, or in defense of it. It sounds like you know why people are mad, but you just don't mind much yourself.

[PhoenixDevil]

@FredEffinChopin
Very well written response with good points, unfortunately I do not have much time to go into detail about that comment but I must agree that 'Justification of the PS pass' may seem like a more suitable title

As you said its not that I don't see the downsides of this but its more that I see that it is in fact going to happen and am looking at it as best I can, while I would not justify everything companies do this one I genuinely do not mind so much

What does worry me is, as mentioned in other comments, this could very well be the trend of future online second hand games. That was part of the reason I wrote this blog as it seems we may all have to adjust to this at some point or another and people who's initial response are 'I simply wont buy it' etc will not counter the problem. Also as mentioned before there are better ways to get first hand sales which is another blog in itself

I see that you used up the rest of your bubbles in other replys so you wont be able to reply to this PM if you would like to continue and thank you for the intelligent comments

[rob6021]

From what I've heard all the passes so far can be shared with up to 5 PS3s (the same one's you're allowed to share your downloads with.)

[longcat]

The pass should at least work on 3-5 systems, like most PSN games.

If sony want to guarantee 1st/2nd party sales, they may need to look at the release calendar a bit more closely. Its getting pretty crowded. hopefully, they dont start to cull 3rd party games

[ThatHappyGamer]

But atleast they should tie the pass to the PS3 "mac address" so that multiple accounts from the same PS3 can access them..

Say I have a younger brother and we share the same PS3.. I don't want to buy 2 copies to play the same game on the same PS3.. :(

[longcat]

If they want one account and one PS3, then fine.

But at $60? No. Not now,not ever. There are too many gaming options for something like this.

[ThatHappyGamer]

^ Sadly most of my friends play in PSN. :(

[nightmarex121]

wouldnt you have to buy another pass not another game?
Well their no details yet but you might be able to use multiple accounts, b/c r3 you can play split screen with dual accounts so idk how that going to work with the pass.

[MrBeatdown]

I'd imagine these passes will work like DLC. With the exception of Battlefield BC2, every online pass I've ever used is nothing more than an unlock file which everyone on a PS3 (or multiple PS3s) can access.

It could be a tied to an account, like a PS+ subscription, but I'd be surprised if Sony went that route. They're obviously going after renters and used buyers, but I don't think they would screw over multiple users on the same console. And really, if they are willing to let multiple accounts use a downloaded game, I see no reason why they would suddenly decide to not let multiple accounts play a game online. It would be a pretty illogical choice for Sony.

[bwazy]

THATS IT, I'm officially done with Console gaming. I'm just going to die happily playing Guildwars 2 for FREE for the rest of my days.

[a08andan]

And you don't think you need a CD-Key attached to your Guild Wars 2 account to play it? That is the exact same thing as the "PSN-passes".

[ThatHappyGamer]

IMHO this is being done to stop game retailers from earning heavy profit where as developers get nothing..

[zero_gamer]

Thanks for posting this article. I'll kindly toss in my coin the mature way (unlike the majority of my posts on N4G)...

"That leaves people who are planning to buy day 1 or just new no reason to boycott and those who were planning to buy second hand and now don't want to because of the online pass will actually have no effect what so ever."

Actually I have a reason to boycott buying the game at all, because if this Online Pass tactic succeeds it could open a door for the industry to lock out the entire game with a pass system that requires a 1-time activation code to use your purchase. Whether or not I buy used is irrelevant in this statement, I am not supportive of this tactic plain and simple.

People seem to forget that a multitude of used game buyers do purchase DLC, supporting the developers in the end and that cheaper game could give gamers more room to purchase DLC. As much as I dislike the majority of DLC, you cannot argue it helps with getting money off from used games buyers in a less punitive approach.

A better approach would be a "thank you" card to reward new game buyers random rare content, that are useful enough to want, which will never be available for purchase. Each copy could have its own randomized combination of rare content so that each gamer can have a different collection of rare goodies to enjoy. A gamer can also show off what they got to their friends as well as a social thing. That could really give the incentive to buy new, but then again my idea leaves room for improvement as well. Feel free to contribute any comments.

All in all, the gaming industry is a profitable business as it is. Online Passes may or may not work the way the industry wants them to work. Either way, I am not supporting such a tactic for many reasons.

[PhoenixDevil]

Yh very good point and response, tbf I'm not really interested in R3 its just been centre of the PS pass things so I probably wont buy it however if it was a game I was really interested in I wouldn't boycott it for this, I can understand that some people like yourself will stand up against this but I dunno how many people will sacrifice getting a game they want because of the idea of the pass, also you have to consider the sheer amount of people who wont have a clue about the pass until they have the game. Some people don't keep up with gaming news as much as regulars on this site

While I actually do think losing any sales, especially hardcore fan sales, is bad I don't think that it will effect much or cause PS pass to stop, Sony have already said its in the pipeline for other first party games, its going to take a lot of gamers a lot of sacrifice with a lot of very possibly good games to get this message across to Sony and other publishers

I agree with the problem of incentive for more people to buy new, advertising and rewards would be better, this kind of investment will actually make customers happy about this kind of thing it is a really shame but unfortunately seems to be a trend in the market

I respect that you don't want to support this and stick to it man, I can't say I like this whole pass system but hopefully wont effect me too much either way we'll see after R3 release and the announcement of future tittles that include this system (also thanks for the mature response :P I feel honored)

[Strange_Evil]

I think the developers should add in more perks for people who buy it new like give a discounted DLC or something on those lines rather than making them pay for online. But with that said, a lot of people cried for XBL paid service and yet people pay for it, so they just went all out and clamped the online part out.

And if you look at it, this is hardly a risk taken by the developer or Sony cause the people who buy new, are gonna buy new regardless and even if 2nd hand sales dips, let it dip, as the developers weren't getting squat from that 2nd hand sale. At least now they get something in return. In fact I thought this was a long time coming and now that Sony and EA have taken the initiative, don't be baffled if Ubisoft, M$, Rockstar and all major studios take the same route.

I for the sake of developers wish that things went digital fast and we could dump the disc format. The main culprit here is the middle-man aka stores like Gamestop which sell used games for 40-45$ and make the whole profit. If 1 can cut these guys out, Developers would get a good share of the money, and the mom's who buy the games for their child, wouldn't be fooled by GS employee to buy used only to come home and find that now you gotta pay for a stupid pass to play online. Stores like Steam which offer great deals have shown how to run an online store.

[hesido]

This online pass will mean less people playing it online, over time. I'm willing to bet that, a game with an online pass would die sooner than a game without (unless it is COD or BF). Some games just cannot afford to do this. It doesn't seem like it is affecting the publisher, as the second hand sale wouldn't do them any good, and they'd have to keep servers running longer for a living franchise which has its cost. But keeping a franchise living long after the launch is good for business in the long term. If less people are playing it just one month after the launch, if multiplayer games get deserted, sure, you have avoided not only the second hand sales, but also late buying of the game first hand, and probably you won't be selling much of the PASS you so wish to sell and earn money.

And I'm sure, IF, IF the game flops, they will still blame it on second hand market somehow, and try ways to avoid second hand playing of single player games, turning a blind eye to real problems.

I seriously believe that not all franchises can afford to behave this way.

[ClimateKaren]

There is already evidence of that, check my earlier post in here about Fight Night Champion. There is no arguing the fact that online communities WILL suffer from this kind of activity.

Good post, bubs.

[blackburn10]

Thank PhoenixDevil for that rational and mature look at the PSN pass. It is hard to find some one on the site that doesn't rant and spit out fanboy BS every 2 seconds. I agree that this may cause inconvenience to some people but all your points make sense especially the part with developers not getting any money from the second hand business anyway so it really isn't their concern if the second hand market dips. For example think how many people buy Warhawk second hand and play on Lightbox's servers that they still have to pay for.

It is no concern of anyone buying R3 new and I really don't see why people go on about the chump change these second hand dealers give you anyway. Besides, gamers can still take advantage of sales, discounts and greatest hits to buy it for less and still get the pass. The pass is a slight annoyance but don't expect the developers to feel sorry for you. You have been making Gamestop and the others rich while they get nothing off of their games. They just want their cut.

[ClimateKaren]

I don't get why developers feel entitled to second hand sales, or why anyone thinks they should be. Anything else in the world that you buy belongs to you to do what you will with ownership-wise unless there are contractual binds going along with the purchase. I can't copy a CD a bought and play it in a club legally, but when I pass that CD on to someone they have the same access to it as I did. When I buy a used car off someone should I have to pay Ford an extra $500 to let me access the ignition? I don't understand why video games should be any different. You made your sale, now let it go. Don't expect us to feel sorry for developers.

Also, it isn't all about Gamestop. People who let friends borrow games, sell on craigslist or Ebay, or share ownership of a title are screwed here.

In the case of something with dedicated servers, it's almost justifiable, but when every game goes this route, believe me, there won't be an increase in online play quality. The only games that are justified in using codes to access online features are ones who have a staff constantly working online, and who are constantly experiencing updates. In other words, mostly MMOs, and in that case even a monthly fee is sometimes justified.

[blackburn10]

I can see what you mean but I don't see why anyone thinks that they aren't. Gamestop and all the others profit off of it and swindle and screw everyone who use them.The amount of money you get from them for a used games is ludicrous and the profit from all the people. Strange that people continue to use their services and despite complaining never boycott them or threaten them.

So why are you so hellbent on stopping the developers, who made the game, from wanting profit from the used gaming market too? People continuously ignore their games and wait until it is used where they get nothing from it.It's easy to say 'they have no right' but if you were a developer you would think differently. It's already hard enough for some developers to make ends meet with piracy and low sales and people still want to find a way to decrease their returns from a game more.I understand, I really do. It can and will be a pain. But what I don't understand is how people allow EA and Gamestop to do what they want but now Sony has decided to adapt it why are people tearing into them?

No one is going to boycott BF3 but everyone is ready to take R3 and Insomniac to the cleaners over this especially since it's not them doing it and this is not across every game for the PS3 except for a few exclusives. Also the fact that Sony has many single player games and is not focused on MP like Microsoft is. All your focus on is what could happen and not what is happening now. And like PhoenixDevil said it's not that bad.

[Christopher]

***I don't get why developers feel entitled to second hand sales, or why anyone thinks they should be.***

First, it's not just "game developers" but all "software developers" who do this.

Second, the reason is because software doesn't depreciate like other goods, nor does it incur the same level of wear and tear as other goods. A car loses up to 25% of its value once it leaves the lot and requires regular maintenance, a video game doesn't. The same is true for the majority of goods out there as well. A piece of software, though, is as good on the 10th year as it was on the first day of release.

Even CDs pale in comparison to digital music sales because they have purposefully lowered the digital prices to be below hard formats so that their DRM can prevent swapping music for the same reason that video game developers want to discourage second-hand sales of games.

[kramun]

@cgoodno

Depreciation is largely irrelevent. Say I bought a brand new tv, run into some money troubles and sold it the next day in perfect condition to a second hand shop who sold it for half the price, would the company who made the tv deserve a cut of that money?

This kind of thing actually goes on all the time, people buy stuff and sell it in perfect condition within months because of one reason or another, and yet you don't hear any other industries complaining about it. Look in second hand shops, or many other shops such as electrical goods retailers, and you will see a lot of stuff getting sold second hand that has only just come on the market, mostly within days of a product launching.

I don't think the companies that sell pre-owned games, like gamestop, are evil. They are just bigger scale versions of a local second-hand shop and therefore are easier for game companies to see. They can see the profits from an industry, that has been around ever since the start of gaming, and they simply want a slice of that profit.

They may want a slice of it, but I don't think they are entitled to it. Consumers can do whatever they want with what they buy. And if I buy pre-owned, well someones bought it brand new already, they've had a sale from it, but they wouldn't have had a sale from me because I obviously didn't think it was worth buying full price.

The way things are going they are going to kill off a lot of things that they benefit from when someone buys a game pre-owned. I've paid out for DLC on games I've bought second hand, but if this is the way it's going to be then they won't see any extra cash from me, I'll just buy the pre-owned games and play them offline. No skin off my nose really.

[hazelamy]

if this was just about making some money from the online portion of the game i could accept it, but the fact is, this is motivated by the desire to destroy the preowned market.

something none of these publisher has any right to do.

they think they deserve more than their fair share.
they got paid what they were due when the game was sold new.
after that point that copy becomes the property of whoever bought it.
and sony have no right over that copy any longer, not as long as the owner doesn't break the law.
and despite what sony and other publishers would like, trading in or selling your games is still 100% legal.

you're defending their greed for more than their fair share here.
and you're criticising us, calling those who complain "whiners", for wanting to retain our rights over our property, because that's what a legally bought copy of a game becoes once we've paid for it, our property, not theirs any more.