Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy Sony Games

Sony Joins the Offensive Against Pre-Owned Games 461

Posted by Soulskill
from the saddle-up dept.
BanjoTed writes "In a move to counter sales of pre-owned games, EA recently revealed DLC perks for those who buy new copies of Mass Effect 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Now, PlayStation platform holder Sony has jumped on the bandwagon with similar plans for the PSP's SOCOM: Fireteam Bravo 3. '[Players] will need to register their game online before they are able to access the multiplayer component of the title. UMD copies will use a redeemable code while the digital version will authenticate automatically in the background. Furthermore ... anyone buying a pre-owned copy of the game will be forced to cough up $20 to obtain a code to play online."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony Joins the Offensive Against Pre-Owned Games

Comments Filter:
  • Weeeellllllllll. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19, 2010 @07:19AM (#31197586)

    If memory serves, isn't the PSP one of those systems it's (relatively) easy to pirate for?

    I have a feeling Sony has traded getting no money from resales to getting no money because everyone's downloading a cracked version.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Orbijx (1208864) *

      It has a varying level of difficulty, depending on which PSP you've picked up.

      As of my last foray into that realm:

      PSP-1000 was the easiest to exploit, depending on firmware version. May need to have a go at it with a service mode battery if the firmware version is too high.

      PSP-2000 usually requires a service mode battery and a 256 MB or larger memory stick to exploit. The batteries are cheap (about $7 [dealextreme.com] online if you know wher).

      PSP-3000 had only a HEN exploit to date, which would allow one to run homebrew, bu

  • Doesn't look like a smart move to me after all the bad press with the sony DRM and rootkit.

    • by Custard Horse (1527495) on Friday February 19, 2010 @07:26AM (#31197642)
      How long before there is a class action lawsuit against Sony for articifically reducing the value of assets that are purchased in good faith. What happens if you wish to sell your PS3 and all of the games? The package will be devalued by the amount of resubscriptions required for the online games.
      • by Registered Coward v2 (447531) on Friday February 19, 2010 @07:36AM (#31197680)

        How long before there is a class action lawsuit against Sony for articifically reducing the value of assets that are purchased in good faith. What happens if you wish to sell your PS3 and all of the games? The package will be devalued by the amount of resubscriptions required for the online games.

        And that's grounds for legal action because? Sony is not stopping you from reselling the games; just not letting you transfer the subscription; something you knew when you bought the game.

        A flip side to this is it benefits someone who doesn't play online - used game prices will drop to accommodate the subscription fee; and if you don't plan to play online you now have a code that you can sell to someone who bought a used game. Either way your price for the game would drop if you don't play online.

        • If I don't want to play online, am I allowed to return the code to Sony for a $20 refund? I should be.

        • by sosume (680416) on Friday February 19, 2010 @08:11AM (#31197852) Journal

          > Sony is not stopping you from reselling the games; just not letting you transfer the subscription; something you knew when you bought the game.

          Online play is a part of the game as advertised on the retail box. Therefore barring use from another machine is a crime on Sony's part. There is no "subscription' - I'm not paying Sony to play this game, I paid the store and online play was included.

          What if my PS3 breaks down due to a technical failure and Sony's warranty replaces the unit. I would then have to pay $20 again for each game?

        • by hedwards (940851)
          Because it's not a subscription it's included with the game. And the makers of Autocad got smacked recently for trying to stop people from selling Autocad on the second hand market. This is just greed pure and simple, companies have gotten used to being able to get away with this sort of shit because the DoJ over the last decade or so hasn't been doing their job when it comes to markets.
        • It is possible, but it is also possilbe that they will use some unique identifier associated with your XBox instead.

          END COMMUNICATION

    • by erroneus (253617)

      1. Most people STILL don't know about that. What's more, some of the people I have discussed it with are not exactly joes on the street -- they are people with technical experience, knowledge and inclination.
      2. It was so long ago, most people don't have that on the forefront of their minds.

      With that said, I agree with you that it's a dumb move for Sony, but many many companies are becoming increasingly aggressive and arrogant when it comes to the consumer. Perhaps their creation and backing of ACTA is mak

  • Digital downloads and online registration bypasses the doctrine/right of first sale which states, essentially that copyright owners cannot control downstream sales of the product purchased. For some reason, this is more difficult to apply to computer software, most likely because of eulas being supported by the courts.

    • by HungryHobo (1314109) on Friday February 19, 2010 @07:32AM (#31197664)

      I know car analogies are old on slashdot but I seriously wonder how long before car manufacturers start building the electronic components of their cars such that they are needlessly dependent on some online system run by the manufacturer so that your fuel indicator only works correctly if your car has been able to update this month from the manufacurers online fuel level measuring methods database and your aircon shuts down unless authenticated with a secure server on a regular basis as a "car theft prevention measure".

      Idiot lawmakers make bypassing or removing the "anti car theft" systems for any reason a crime.
      Drivers pay through the nose to have an account with the manufacturer.
      Manufacturers get more profit since now people have an incentive to not buy used cars.
      Shills start trolling car enthusiast message boards talking about how it's a good thing because this way the car companies get more money to build better cars and everyone wins except those dirty car thieves.

      I can honestly see it happening.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jamesh (87723)

        I can honestly see it happening.

        Completely different market. With a computer game, the software is the product, it can be (illegally) copied very cheaply so the manufacturers need to find more creative ways to sustain their business models. With a car, the car is the product, and the software is just a component of it. And the car can't be copied cheaply so the existing business models work just fine.

        That doesn't mean they won't try it of course... but unless there is collaboration across the whole car industry it won't fly.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by SpacePunk (17960)

          Perhaps it is a different market, but the concept here is basically the 'right of first sale', 2nd hand sales etc... not piracy. No, the car cannot be copied, but your right of reselling he car could very well be restricted.

          Say a car manufacturer considered 2nd hand sales of it's cars to be theft, just as video game makers see 2nd hand sales of their games. So, you must register your vehicle with the manufacturer in order for it to continue to work beyond five minutes at a time with a ten minute 'cool do

          • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19, 2010 @09:19AM (#31198218)

            I work for a one of the big european car manufactorer's. I can assure you that car manufactorer's have absolutely no interest in crippliing used cars sales.

            If people could not sell their cars(to the dealer or to another user directly) they would keep using the same old car until it can. Car manufactorer's are instead very interested in people changing thir car every few years(2-3-5 are the most interesting spans), so they can seel a new one. People buyng a used medium size sedan are not likely to buy the same car new, while people changing their medium size sedan every 2-3 years are not likely to resort to used cars market(they clearly like having brand new cars), so there is very little overlap.

            Also a used car is a very very different product from a new one. They have different values and there are many risks for non competent people buying 5 or more years old cars.

            A car, even if there is no newer version, gets old with use and get less and less "useful" with time. There are very little istances of cars which are more than 10 years old and still good for everyday use, at least not without major maintenance(old fasghioned cars are a good example, if well kept they can be in perfect working order, but the cost of mantaining a 50's car in mint condition are very high. What you spend on it in 5 years is for syure much more than what you'd spend to buy a maintain a brand new car for the same time, and you'd have to factor that newer cars have better mileage, and much bettere safety systems, not to mention comfort).

            Used games are the same, as long as the instalation media is not ruined they don't loose value due to use or abuse. The only limiting factor in a game value is aging, which is devalueing because newer better games come out. So These people just want to spend less money making new games, and keep milking old cows.

            Car makers used not to have this problem up to a few years ago. they did start in the nineties to make new models every 2-3 years because they wanted to push obsolescence on their previous models just to sell more(they mostly succeeded here in europe).

        • by sydb (176695)

          No, in both cases the experience is the product. Get with it.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by halcyon1234 (834388)

          Completely different market. With a computer game, the software is the product, it can be (illegally) copied very cheaply so the manufacturers need to find more creative ways to sustain their business models. With a car, the car is the product, and the software is just a component of it. And the car can't be copied cheaply so the existing business models work just fine.

          And, to boot, every car manufacture supports and participates in the second-hand market. You can buy a used GM directly from a GM dealer. T

      • More likely the car drives at the lowest legal speed unless its speed limit database is up to date.

      • All the technological means are in place in any car with a system like Onstar [wikipedia.org]. GPS, cellular modem, some control over the ECU...

        I suspect that the market reaction would be ugly; but there is no technological reason why such a system could not be used for all sorts of exciting pricing schemes.
      • by jimicus (737525) on Friday February 19, 2010 @08:51AM (#31198056)

        They already tried something similar when cars first started having diagnostic ports - you had to use a special machine to read the diagnostic code which was only available from the manufacturer to franchised dealers. This is why OBD-II was developed and is now mandated in much of the world.

    • They aren't controlling the downstream sale of the product, they are controlling access to a related service, which does not contravene the first sale doctrine.
      • by obarthelemy (160321) on Friday February 19, 2010 @08:31AM (#31197964)

        Doesn't it depend on how they present the product ? Let's say the product is the software, the physical media, the packaging, and maybe online access.

        - if 'online' is an option, then I should be able to get a refund if I'm not interested. By law, 'linked sale' must be breakable into constitutive parts in my country (France).

        - if 'online' is an integral part of the product, then I should be able to resell it along with the software itself.

        We're going to see some fancy marketing-legalese footnotes on those games...

    • by Carewolf (581105) on Friday February 19, 2010 @08:26AM (#31197928) Homepage

      It doesnt bypass anything. The first sale doctrine still applies, and Sony has to allow the transfer of DLC to other accounts. Of course someone has to sue them first to force them to respect the law, until that happens they can flaunt the law all they want.

  • by grimJester (890090) on Friday February 19, 2010 @07:21AM (#31197600)
    Yes, charging buyers of pre-owned games 20 bucks will show those dirty pirates. In other news, as part of my own ongoing fight against piracy I'll install self-destruct mechanisms and DRM in cars and charging 1k for every driver authentication beyond the first. Because I don't want my car analogies to be pirated. It makes perfect sense, I assure you.
  • Preowned? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Root kit?

  • by Posting=!Working (197779) on Friday February 19, 2010 @07:24AM (#31197616)

    Koller is also confident that consumers will react well to the news - despite the fact that Ubisoft was forced to defend its proposition in the face of angry gamers. "From our research, this will be received quite positively," he insisted.

    They really are completely delusional. What benefit does this provide to the consumers that they'll react positively to? Is there even any theoretical benefit to the consumer? Maybe the research was done entirely among Sony executives.

    • by Inda (580031)
      No, no. Obviously the lack of sell-on value will result in a reduced retail price! I'm really looking forward to buying one of these games for $10 on the day of release!

      Exclaimation mark!
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Fluffeh (1273756)

      Koller is also confident that consumers will react well to the news - despite the fact that Ubisoft was forced to defend its proposition in the face of angry gamers. "From our research, this will be received quite positively," he insisted.

      They really are completely delusional. What benefit does this provide to the consumers that they'll react positively to? Is there even any theoretical benefit to the consumer? Maybe the research was done entirely among Sony executives.

      It's the oldest story in the book. If you repeat something enough people will eventually believe it. Besides, how often have you seen press statements that don't appear to make any sense at all, but they still play the "Hai, this is what we do" statement. It's sad, but it works in the bigger picture. A lot of investors simply lap that shit up.

    • I may be overly cynical, but I think the talk of piracy while eroding / bypassing every consumer protection law under the sun is more for political reasons than to reassure their customers. They want to cover their asses in advance of the inevitable EFF lawsuits. If they lose any of those, they'll lobby for new laws.
    • by rastilin (752802)

      They really are completely delusional. What benefit does this provide to the consumers that they'll react positively to? Is there even any theoretical benefit to the consumer? Maybe the research was done entirely among Sony executives.

      At this point, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that one or more of the Sony executives are in the pay of their competition. It would make perfect sense.

  • Given that the former owner doesn't have access to the game, wouldn't Sony be profiting off someone not using their online subscription anymore? If they want money so badly, they should require an annual subscription.

  • NOT PIRACY (Score:4, Interesting)

    by xtracto (837672) on Friday February 19, 2010 @07:25AM (#31197638) Journal
    The sad thing about this is that, this has NOTHING to do with illegal distribution of games.

    This has all to do with greedy corporations who keep moving towards the "software as a service" paradigm.

    Nowadays, a lot of games you "buy" contain only a very small offline playing offering.

    I only want a multiplayer videogame that I can play at home with my friends (at home two!). I just got the "Spyborgs" game for Wii... I haven't had so much fun in some time; it is the first "cooperative player with a history when playing both of them" I have been able to play (since I played Army of Two for PS3!).
    • by Fluffeh (1273756)

      This has all to do with greedy corporations who keep moving towards the "software as a service" paradigm. Nowadays, a lot of games you "buy" contain only a very small offline playing offering.

      I don't have any problems with software as a service. I have subscribed to a LOT of MMOGs. That's perfectly fine in my books. It's a service they give. They keep adding content, I buy an occasional expansion, we carry on happily.

      What rubs me the wrong way however, is when a package that isn't actually software as a service is painted to look like one. A normal shooter, with online play, that's not a service. That's what you damn well expect.

      With a little luck, these bone heads will eventually learn th

      • I don't mind so much if Sony charges me to use their servers (as long as it's not too expensive), as they are paying to maintain them. If this impacted in any way the ability to play single player mode on second hand games, that's completely outrageous.
        • I don't mind so much if Sony charges me to use their servers

          But I do mind if Sony pulls the plug on the server just before the tournament that we planned out on a forum, or if Sony pulls the plug before I even break the shrinkwrap on a new-in-box game (which has happened to me twice).

    • ...and Sony are the pirates, "sealing" from people legitimately buy the game second-hand.
  • Fuck all of you (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I am in the position now where I don't really care about money anymore. So I tend to purchase good products because I feel like the creators deserve to be compensated.

    I already avoid Sony products but now I will actively pirate your shit and help other do so as well.
    FUCK YOU!

  • by mkintigh (1719294) on Friday February 19, 2010 @07:31AM (#31197656)
    Nothing like discouraging people from wanting to buy their product -- new or used. I knew Sony was an evil empire (coming from someone that worked for them far too long), but this is just stupid.
  • by quadrox (1174915) on Friday February 19, 2010 @07:37AM (#31197686)

    Let me be neither the first or last to say:

    Fuck you, sony and EA.

  • Smart move? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by miffo.swe (547642)

    Why on earth do they do everything in their might to discourage people from buying games and instead pirating them? Im starting to believe its intentional and that for some reason the media industry think they will make more money out of lawsuits than from selling games the normal way.

  • bleh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Keruo (771880) on Friday February 19, 2010 @07:47AM (#31197726)
    If you pay for it, its yours to sell forward. This applies to resale of licenses as well.
    Should we try the hollywood approach here instead?

    You wouldn't sell a car..
  • Pre-owned? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Scutter (18425) on Friday February 19, 2010 @07:51AM (#31197742) Journal

    What's wrong with the word "used"? Are you all car dealers now?

  • I won't be pirating or renting or selling any of your games... or game systems... I won't be buying any of them either.

  • by C0R1D4N (970153) on Friday February 19, 2010 @07:56AM (#31197770)
    EA/Bioware adds little perks for people who buy the retail version of the game or preorder it even (a suit of armor, a downloadable character) that you really want to have in a game you have a strong desire to play (Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2). Sony utterly gimps your gameplay experience. I am not bothered by one (and hell think it's a good idea) guess which one that is.
  • by Anita Coney (648748) on Friday February 19, 2010 @08:04AM (#31197804) Homepage

    So many people think that the used game market is somehow harming the new game market. They are completely wrong. Through the magic of a priori reasoning, I know that you cannot be harmed merely because you're not getting what you are not entitled.

    Let me explain. Wouldn't it be awesome if your coworkers gave you a cut of their salary, for no reason whatsoever? Wouldn't it be great if you walked into a bank one day and the teller decided to give you a portion of the bank's holdings, for no reason whatsoever?

    Yep, that would be awesome, no doubt about it. But are you being harmed because your coworkers and bank are not giving you money you don't deserve? Nope.

    That's what's going on with the new game and used game markets. The new game industry somehow feels entitled to profits from the used game market. Despite having absolutely no legal basis for such entitlement. In the United States we have the right of first sale. What that means is that we can sell what we bought, even if what we bought was copyrighted material. So we have a right to sell our DVDs, CD, and used games.

    Of course someone will say that my coworker/bank analogies fail because they don't take into consideration that the game industry created the games that the used game market is selling. If you think that, you're completely missing the point.

    The fact that the game industry originally created the game is completely irrelevant to whether it is entitled to any profits from secondary or tertiary sales. It does not have such a right to profits. None whatsoever. No more than General Motors has a right to profit from the sale of the used Chevy truck you just sold. GM created the truck, does it deserve a cut from every subsequent sale? What about your house, should the contractor get a cut when you sell it, when it's sold 100 years from now? (I live in a house originally built in 1856, exactly who am I supposed to pay when I resell and move out?)

    My point is, much like how you have no rights to your coworkers pay, and much like how you have no rights to your bank's holdings, the new game industry has no right to profits from the used game market. None whatsoever.

    Of course the new game industry outright lies and claims that the used game market "Is profiting from the sale of our games." It's a lie because once the new game industry sells a particular copy of the game; it is no longer their game. They have absolutely no ownership right in that particular copy. So to accuse the used game market of taking or stealing their property is an outright lie.

    I have no doubt that someone will argue that the new game industry is being harmed because of lost sales. I.e., consumers are buying from the used game market rather than from the new game industry which is causing the new game industry to lose money.

    Let's get one thing straight: Losing sales to a competitor is not harm. It's competition.

    The new game industry's claim that it's being harmed from the used game market is as asinine as McDonalds claiming it is being harmed by Burger King.

    Now certainly if Burger King was unfairly or illegally competing, for example, if Burger King ignored health and safety laws to keep their prices lower, in that circumstance one could argue that McDonalds would be harmed by the unfair and illegal competition.

    But in this instance there is no illegality or unfairness in the used game market. It's not illegal for consumers to resell their games. It's not unfair to price those used games lower because the products are necessarily inferior to the new ones.

    If your industry is somehow being harmed by perfectly legal and fair competition, then it's about time change careers because you have a complete misunderstanding about how capitalism is supposed to work. You are not entitled to someone else's profits, merely because you want them. Get over it.

    Unfortunately, this is exactly why the new game industry is having laws passed to make it more difficult to sell used games. Despite what corporations say, they don't really want to compete in a free market, they want the government to bend over and protect them from legal competition.

    • by GospelHead821 (466923) on Friday February 19, 2010 @08:28AM (#31197938)

      By the reasoning that you've used, I think that one has to endorse what Sony's doing here. After reading through most of the comments, I think I do anyway. All Sony's doing, after all, is competing more effectively. Their competitor is a reseller. Therefore, is there really anything wrong with Sony creating a product that is more useful when purchased new than when purchased from their competitor? Let's try a different spin on this: Sony isn't selling crippled software. They're selling software bundled with a one-time use subscription code. $30 for the software, $20 for the code. Sorry, no refunds, though. If you're interested in just the single-player experience, you should buy the game used. It's fine if you choose to sell the software but the new user will also have to subscribe.

      • I have no problem with what Sony is doing here. They are selling a physical game, which can be resold without impediment. And an online service, which each subsequent purchaser of the game needs to buy if he wants to partake in it.

        My post came from my blog and was merely about the general idea about used and new game sales.

        • by sydb (176695)

          So you were looking to profit (in karma) from a USED blog post! You are as bad as those you rail against!

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by delinear (991444)
        That's fine assuming when Sony tells people to buy the game used, they still protect those people with the same warranty, otherwise they are certainly doing something wrong. If the subscribed content is distinct to the main content then they have to offer the main content for sale by itself, otherwise they're actually selling one single product and no amount of spin will change that, or the fact that if they cripple that product they're affecting its resale value. If they want to start offering single playe
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DrXym (126579)
      So many people think that the used game market is somehow harming the new game market. They are completely wrong. Through the magic of a priori reasoning, I know that you cannot be harmed merely because you're not getting what you are not entitled.

      Of course it harms new game sales. If someone can buy a new game for $60 vs a used game for $50 then obviously some people would choose the latter. The money from that sale goes to store, not the publisher.

      How much they're losing is the big question. I wouldn'

    • They are in other words competing with their own older products, just like the car industry

      If Ford started producing rubbish cars then the second hand car market would take up the slack and people who want a Ford would buy second hand cars

      If the games industry are not producing games people want anymore then people will buy second hand games

      The solution is to make games people want to buy, rather than crippling or charging for older games

      What's next the music industry charging more for older songs so that n

  • by QuoteMstr (55051) <dan.colascione@gmail.com> on Friday February 19, 2010 @08:05AM (#31197816)

    A company can do whatever the hell it wants! Nobody forces you to buy these games after all. Between bong hits, you hippies whine that policies like this lead to decreased consumer choice, greater entrenchment of established players, less innovation, and price increases [wikipedia.org] across the board. So what? That's just too bad. The right of a corporation to do anything it wants it spelled out in the Book of Job. If a corporation does it, that makes it right.

    Still whining, huh? Are you a successful executive? No? When what business do you have talking about anything, loser? Don't like it? Go read a book, or move to a France, or preferably, impress your boss by putting in 12 hours at work tomorrow instead of the expected 10.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      According to your logic a company can charge you for a product and then not provide it, if they do provide it can be faulty, dangerous, or not as advertised "If a corporation does it, that makes it right"

      Strangely the law disagrees with you ....as it probably does in this case as well, as soon as someone takes Sony to court ...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by dunezone (899268)

      If a corporation does it, that makes it right.

      This is just wrong in so many ways. By that logic we wouldn't have anti-trust laws, safety regulations, or anything cause the corporation is always in the right. Well lets look at three examples where corporations were in the wrong and it required legislation to fix it.

      We now have food regulation in place because a can of beef contained more than just beef. The corporations believed they could save money by filling a can of beef with half beef and half whatever the hell they wanted without telling us. N

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by QuoteMstr (55051)

        I agree with you, and more. My comment was intended to be satire. (Check my comment history if you doubt me.)

        That so many people took me seriously is really an indictment of how absurdly far right the discussion [wikipedia.org] has moved. If corporations were natural persons, they'd be seemed psychopaths, a danger to themselves and others, and locked up where they couldn't do any harm. It's absolutely preposterous that some people elevate them above a democratically-elected government.

        The right to form a corporation is not

  • by 2fuf (993808) on Friday February 19, 2010 @08:05AM (#31197818)
    I used to be a fan of my C64 games as a kid and I loved playing PC games for years. So much in fact I tried breaking into game development and ran the local IGDA chpater for some years. My heart is still with games and I think they are a wonderful extension to the artforms of literature, cinema and storytelling. When I see how the game dev industry treats its customers these days, I really get the feeling they are way beyond stretching their welcome. Games (especially console games) are so icredibly overpriced and lacking of creativity and intellectual depth that I wonder why gamers are still interested in buying/playing them. I haven't upgraded my gaming pc for almost 8 years now and I only have a Wii because my wife like the balance board games (and admittedly I love being her audience). The only games I occassionaly play are the really old ones, like Civ II/III Baldur's Gate stuff, the good old Sierra point and clicks (Larry, 2D King Quest) because of the humor and fun in these games. Also I really love firing up the C64 emulator for a quick round of classics. When will they stop squeezing customers for every penny and drop the incredible graphics/hardware performance race that has been polluting the game content for the past decade. I don't give a damn about 3D performnace or yet another FPS, come up with something new, interesting exciting. Something that doesn't insult my intelligence and challenges and entertains me in a more subtle way. Dear Douglas Adams I miss you, you were well on your way to solve this problem but you passed too soon. Oh god, is no one going to change this rotten game dev industry we're having? Perhaps I'm just an old fool blabbering about the lost good old days, but doesn't anyone agree that it's not supposed to be like this? *sigh*
  • What nonsense (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ZeroExistenZ (721849) on Friday February 19, 2010 @08:06AM (#31197830)

    We used to buy a silver disk and it contained a game. As long there was an active userbase playing it, you would have multiplayer. Otherwise, you'd organize a night of multiplayer gaming with friends or play single player mode. But the game was yours to play.

    If I look at it, the games industry is evolving to a SaaS-model; you pay a subscription fee on a games base and when you stop paying you are denied access.

    it wouldn't surprice me, with latest Nvidea's realtime rendering farm et al, we'd soon have a subscribers base "gamers account", where you can pay monthly for "casual gaming", a more expensive "regular gaming"-account or "extreme all the latest games at fuckplenty fps"-account giving you access to certain titles/types of games which you can play realtime over wire.

    Gaming like we've known before, on brown or silver disks, seems to be phasing out forever.

  • basically this is what they are saying you.

  • by tiberiumx (1221152) on Friday February 19, 2010 @08:27AM (#31197930)
    I just don't give a damn about the DLC. I played Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 all the way through without even noticing the little DLC registration cards in the box (typically those are just advertisements) until someone mentioned them. Both games were good and complete. The presence of free-if-you-buy-it-from-us DLC isn't going to motivate me to ignore a used game if it is available. What pisses me off is in-game advertisements for DLC. Every time you go back to camp in DAO some asshole is standing in the back with a bright yellow exclamation mark saying "Buy the DLC for my quest!". No, asshole, if you don't represent a playable part of my game, get the fuck out. I'm afraid we'll see a lot more of this sort of thing in the future, as our (more profitable than ever) game companies continue to morph into greedy bastards like the rest of the entertainment industry.
  • Repeat (Score:5, Informative)

    by Meneth (872868) on Friday February 19, 2010 @08:58AM (#31198104)
    Piracy is the better choice. It's been said before, but apparently it hasn't gotten old yet.
  • by Sandbags (964742) on Friday February 19, 2010 @09:10AM (#31198180) Journal

    This is a cycle, and I'm stuck in it. When the PS3 came out, first I waited simply because I wanted to be sure the platform took off. I eventually said to myself "It's going well, as soon as they drop the price I'll buy one." Well, they not only dropped the price, they dropped the emotion chip. ...so I didn't buy it. Later they were to drop the price, and they dropped the Emotion chip EMULATOR TOO, then Linux boot support, now they're dropping my ability to get good value on resale of games (since that $20 is getting passed to the consumer, my game is not $20 less valuable at resale, especially since most used games I BUY are only $20 or less, that's a huge hit). I was all set, finally just willing to admit there were few enough PS2 games I have that I'd actualyl play it was worth just keeping the PS2 slim i have around to play them, and I was going to buy a PS3 this summer when the price inevitably dropped again.

    Sorry Sony, your screwed yourselves again. I'll just buy another PC based game or two, maybe a new Vid Card.

  • by Lumpy (12016) on Friday February 19, 2010 @09:34AM (#31198334) Homepage

    Honestly EA's free DLC for new only is only fluf. the freebies they give you for ME2 are a joke and useless compared to other gear in the game it's nothing you need to finish the game and honestly only gives you a leg up for the first hour of playing (the black hole gun will actually screw you if you use it instead of the grenade launcher.) and the cerebus network is 100% useless.

    free DLC is typically junk that only impresses people for a very short time.. like the crap free DLC that Dr Pepper is giving away.

    Taking away the ability to play online? that's simply screwing people and disabling a big part of the game.

  • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Friday February 19, 2010 @10:20AM (#31198784)

    Seriously, it is "used." I have no idea why used has become a dirty word. "Pre-owned" is a BS term, that is more complex than it needs to be. Used is fine.

  • by wjousts (1529427) on Friday February 19, 2010 @10:40AM (#31199042)
    Look at the bright side, this is great news for people who only play single player and only buy used. Used copies of this game willl have to be at least $20 less than new or new would actually be a better deal! Well done Sony, you've just reduced the cost of used games!
  • They feel the need to screw their customers, and I feel the need not to buy their products.

    Shine on, Sony. Shine on.

  • Yawn. Who cares. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DarthVain (724186) on Friday February 19, 2010 @11:31AM (#31199658)

    So long as Sony is upfront about its policy (which may be in question given it is Sony) who cares.

    There is a very easy solution. Vote with your wallet. Don't buy the game. If you feeling really pissed, don't buy Sony products. They will get the message eventually, or if they don't they won't be around much longer.

    It really is that simple.

    However if they "trick" people into buying their products, and then once it is too late announce that "Oh BTW that thing you just bought is now crippled by this DRM, you must be online or register online, etc... to actually play our game". That would piss me off to the point where I would be demanding my money back.

I have not yet begun to byte!

Working...