Sony exploring EA's Online Pass equivalent

[rounds1]

Not completely - it's also about making money, but I understand what the intentions are. I'm saying they're only delaying and finagling around what they'd really like to charge for.

Good grief.

Edit: At the end, it also mentions everyone having to pay for basic online play and how they have to "talk about it."

It's coming. Book it!

[boffo]

This is just everyone in the industry finally realizing they have the power to do something to either increase the number of people who buy new over used or at least gets them some money from a used sale. Charging for online play is not a solution for the problem they're trying to solve here.

[rounds1]

Well, it's a solution in that everyone's paying for online in one way or another - whether new game or not.

Then you wouldn't need to have an "online pass" because if someone wants to play online, they have to pay either way... it's just one fee rather than a separate one for every game.

[dz06lt]

No that doesn't solve anything, you are already paying to play online. Who gets that money though ms not ea or activision or take 2 or thq. This not really about pay to play it's clearly about curbing used games sales. The only company that has so far hinted at addl pay to play is activision

[rounds1]

This is Sony we're talking about - and I'm sure they're only considering this for their own exclusives. They can't hardly force developers to include such an option in their games.

So, if Sony charged for online -- which I think is inevitable anyway -- then, yes, it would solve the "you're buying a used game and we aren't getting any money for your time spent online with that game, yet we're paying to keep the servers running," dilemma.

This about Sony having to keep up online support for a game, but people who didn't pay Sony to play that game playing online for free. I don't see how charging for online play wouldn't solve that... because now you're paying whether the game is used or new. It isn't just about curbing used game sales, although I'm sure they'd like to do that as well - it's about Sony being paid for supporting you to play online. If EA had a payment option to play online with their games, that would also eliminate the need for their "online pass."

And, really, EA is the only developer who can realistically create this online pass, because they're the only one who supplies their own servers.

[dz06lt]

I belive take 2 does also. And again your hate for sony shows through. This is only about used sales they want some of that used game action. Have you seen gamestops earnings it's a damn joke. This is what these devs(Sony is one) want. They may lament their free online model but that isn't changing anytime soon. Regardlessof what you may want to think.

On a side note I'm sure that you are aware that the game devs are paying for free consumer online play service right?

[rounds1]

How is anything I said showing a hatred for Sony? Because I think they'll eventually charge for online? I think they'd be stupid not to, tbh, but they need to at least match the same capabilities of XBL or people won't go for it (at least the "hard core"). Nope, my comments are nothing more than an observation/suggestion/forecast for the future. Just look at the article, they even admit that they're going to talk about charging for online. I'm not making this stuff up or dreaming of Sony's demise.

I think for the PS3 it's probably out of the question, but I can almost guarantee that with the PS4 they start charging for multiplayer. The writing is all over the wall.

The developers pay for the creation of the online portion of the game, but not the upkeep of the servers. That's what XBL is for, and I'm fairly certain Sony hosts all of the games on PS3 as well - but for some.

As for getting some of the used game sales "action," in all realistic scenarios I doubt many who buy used are going to pay for a pass to play online. If you're buying a game used, you're buying it used because it's cheaper; and if it's cheaper, that probably means it's been out a while; which also means there probably aren't many people playing online anyhow; which means that paying for an online pass for that game would likely be a waste.

[PirateThom]

Sony, as a major publisher, have a lot to lose from used game sales.

I have said this a few times, if you buy used you're not the customer of the company, they don't care what you think and don't have to give you anything.

If this was about online play, they'd do what they're doing with MAG, charging 99 cents a month for a new character slot, but apply it to EVERY game, but they're not... this is entirely about making people give Sony a cut, rather than Gamestop everything.

[PirateThom]

Originally Posted by rounds1

As for getting some of the used game sales "action," in all realistic scenarios I doubt many who buy used are going to pay for a pass to play online. If you're buying a game used, you're buying it used because it's cheaper; and if it's cheaper, that probably means it's been out a while; which also means there probably aren't many people playing online anyhow; which means that paying for an online pass for that game would likely be a waste.

How many copies of Modern Warfare 2 did you see in stores, $5 cheaper a week after release?

Cause, I saw a hell of a lot.

The online pass is SPECIFICALLY trying to prevent the scenario you're describing, people buying used because it's cheaper. If the difference is $5 and an online pass is $10-15, then they'll likely opt for a new copy. Publisher gets a cut and retailer gets a cut rather than buying used where retailer gets all.

[dz06lt]

At least somebody gets it. Uncharted, killzone resistance mag an warhawk log plenty of time online. Deep down you are jelouse that is users donthave to pay and you do.