Sony wants you to buy SOCOM: US Navy Seals Fireteam Bravo 3 new, not used

[Childs]

Welcome to the future. Game companies are all going to begin to follow this model, and I will just quit playing online or purchasing DLC...bad news for YOU game companies!

This is only a problem if all you do us buy used games. I'm with the game companies on this one, as Gamestop is undercutting sales. Lowering prices on new games wouldnt help, as Gamestop would just buy back and resell at less than new, cutting out the devs and pubs.

 

[smackababy]

This is only a problem if all you do us buy used games. I'm with the game companies on this one, as Gamestop is undercutting sales. Lowering prices on new games wouldnt help, as Gamestop would just buy back and resell at less than new, cutting out the devs and pubs.

The best part is GameStop won't be making nearly as much money as it used to. They buy back games for at most $35 and resell them for $55. Plus, they've most likely sold the game to the individual already. They are selling the same game twice, but paying a fraction of what they should.

I don't believe the used game market that boycotts and such will stop these games from making more money. I am not actually against the idea, IF companies put out demos to preview the game.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Good. Stick it to GameStop. They have been reaping huge profits off of the game developers' and game publishers' backs for years by being nothing more than a glorified pawn shop.

Mass Effect 2 has a similar incentive with the Cerberus Network included in every new game. It is required to download any DLC, and it costs $15 if the game is bought used.

Still though, disabling multiplayer unless the game is bought new or this addon is bought is a bit extreme...

But hey, I don't care since I always buy games new anyway, and I wouldn't buy this game in the first place.

 

[BoberFett]

i really dont think that will have any effect on the game companies, since you buying them used didn't give them a single penny anyways.

so yah, you keep doing that.

Yes, because of the hundreds upon hundreds of games that I have purchased going all the way back to the 2600 (at last count I owned around 80 Xbox 360 games) NONE of them have been purchased NEW.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Yes, because of the hundreds upon hundreds of games that I have purchased going all the way back to the 2600 (at last count I owned around 80 Xbox 360 games) NONE of them have been purchased NEW.

:hmm: He didn't say that you never buy games new, he said that every time you buy a used game none of the money gets back to the publisher/developer. Try reading his post more carefully?

Also this thread is going places woo woo :awe:

 

[BoberFett]

:hmm: He didn't say that you never buy games new, he said that every time you buy a used game none of the money gets back to the publisher/developer. Try reading his post more carefully?

Also this thread is going places woo woo :awe:

Which part of the word "sell" do you not understand? If I do buy a new game for $60, that new game now becomes unsellable for more than half of it's original cost. Used games already have a price hit, plus there's an extra $15-20 required to use the games full features. So if I buy a game, finish it quickly, and want to sell it I now can sell it for $30 or less. My options are A) suck it up and take the hit or B) give the publisher the finger and not purchase their game to begin with. I'm going to go with B, so now they have lost that sale. Do they make up for it elsewhere? Perhaps, but I'm not going to be a part of their money grubbing attack on consumers rights.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Neither of you really made any sense at all in your posts so nevermind. You never said anything about resale value. purbeast made a non-sequitur and you responded with your own.

 

[lupi]

The PC users would like to welcome you to our world.

 

[Craig234]

New copies of the just released PSP game, SOCOM: US Navy Seals Fireteam Bravo 3, include a code to access the Playstation Network. Once entered, the code enables online access with SOCOM for that PSP only. Without the code, gamers will be unable to play SOCOM's online multiplayer unless they pay a $20 fee. The access code is an effort to both curb piracy and presumably battle the used games market by encouraging gamers to buy new.

This news comes fresh off the heels that EA requires gamers to enter a "VIP Code" in order to gain access to free DLC for Battlefield: Bad Company 2.

Sony's John Koller frames this as an issue related to piracy and as only a trial run for future titles in an interview with IGN.

“SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs Fireteam Bravo 3 is a trial run for a new initiative we are exploring for the platform," Koller said. "We will continue to explore this as an opportunity for the platform going forward, but we have no announcements to make on future iterations at this time.”​

Could this be something we see spill over to other titles on not only the PSP but the Playstation 3 as well? With rumors floating around about Sony charging for features on the Playstation Network it may be an unwelcome possibility.​

I am ok with the whole 'used market' going away. Seems to me the business transaction is a consumer enjoys a game and pays money to the people who provide it - developer and publisher.

Except in the used market they pay zero to the people who brought the game for them to enjoy.

Eliminating the used market would allow for lower prices. I'm not sure how analogous it is but look at how Steam can have great PC sales for games that can't be resold.

 

[BoberFett]

Sounds like Craig is going to side against consumers. Color me shocked.

 

[erwos]

I find that what Sony's doing here is somewhat more offensive than EA's current stratagem - because, while EA is just yanking some bonus content, Sony is actually disabling a core part of the game.

 

[tw1164]

This is only a problem if all you do us buy used games. I'm with the game companies on this one, as Gamestop is undercutting sales. Lowering prices on new games wouldnt help, as Gamestop would just buy back and resell at less than new, cutting out the devs and pubs.

If publishers are worried about the Gamestop, they could strike a deal similar to the WB/netflix/redbox. The publishers could offer the game to GS at a reduced cost if GS were to agree to not sell the game used within XX (90) days of release.

 

[tw1164]

I am ok with the whole 'used market' going away. Seems to me the business transaction is a consumer enjoys a game and pays money to the people who provide it - developer and publisher.

Except in the used market they pay zero to the people who brought the game for them to enjoy.

Eliminating the used market would allow for lower prices. I'm not sure how analogous it is but look at how Steam can have great PC sales for games that can't be resold.

Why would a company reduce prices if the customer was unable to buy it used? I suspect the prices would reduce at a slower pace then we currently experience today.

 

[Razgriz]

Why would a company reduce prices if the customer was unable to buy it used? I suspect the prices would reduce at a slower pace then we currently experience today.

I know right? way to go EA and Sony

 

[AstroManLuca]

I am ok with the whole 'used market' going away. Seems to me the business transaction is a consumer enjoys a game and pays money to the people who provide it - developer and publisher.

Except in the used market they pay zero to the people who brought the game for them to enjoy.

Eliminating the used market would allow for lower prices. I'm not sure how analogous it is but look at how Steam can have great PC sales for games that can't be resold.

You know, I'd agree with you if there was some way to allow individuals to sell or trade games to each other while preventing middlemen like GameStop from acting as pawn shops. It seems no one likes GameStop and doesn't care if they are damaged by recent moves by publishers to curb used game sales. I certainly won't shed a tear, but it would suck to be unable to tell one of my friends, "Hey, I don't play this game anymore, want to trade for it?" Well, it's still possible but they wouldn't get all the content I did. Perhaps some sort of one-time license transfer. Once it's been done once, it can't be done again, so GameStop can't take them and then resell them.

Although one of the games I gave to a friend, EA's NHL 08, already has that sort of limitation. EA shuts down online servers for their old sports games within 1-2 years of their release, but neither I nor my friend plays sports games online anyway.

Of course none of that will actually happen. But oh well. I'm at least hoping for a sort of fee-based gifting system on Steam. Pay a few bucks (perhaps calculated as a percentage of the current sale price) to transfer a game to another account. Split the money between Valve and the developer/publisher or something.

 

[sao123]

I am ok with the whole 'used market' going away. Seems to me the business transaction is a consumer enjoys a game and pays money to the people who provide it - developer and publisher.

Except in the used market they pay zero to the people who brought the game for them to enjoy.

Eliminating the used market would allow for lower prices. I'm not sure how analogous it is but look at how Steam can have great PC sales for games that can't be resold.

im not, specifically for one reason.
out of production games would be impossible to find.

the used game market is still very important to me, as I can still buy titles for systems which havent been produced in years.
I still buy:
NES games
SNES games
GBC/GBA Games
PS1/PS2 Games

so... in 10 years now I find an old PS3 game I never played before... and if its up to sony, it wont be on the shelf.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

This is only a problem if all you do us buy used games. I'm with the game companies on this one, as Gamestop is undercutting sales. Lowering prices on new games wouldnt help, as Gamestop would just buy back and resell at less than new, cutting out the devs and pubs.

I don't only buy used games but I don't see the point in needing to buy it new to play it online. That is an absolute joke to basically hijack part of the game to force you to buy it new. You guys can agree with these multi-billion dollar corporations all you want but it just makes it look like you work in management for EA.

And FYI, Mass Effect lost at least 4 DLC downloads from me for pulling that Cerebrus Network crap with ME2. I already have the points in my account ready to go, instead I will download another game with it. I love ME1 so far and am looking forward to ME2, but I will not put money into the coffers of overly greedy corporations, which is exactly what game developers are becoming...greedy multi-national corporations. Not my loss in any way, shape, or form.

 

[sourceninja]

The second hand market is GOOD for gaming companies. They just don't see it. They see it as a lost sale. That's not true.

I buy most of my games used. I buy DLC for those games. I will not pay the price of new games. Thus, if the second hand market was removed, I would not be buying any DLC. Seeing as my xbox360's drive is almost full. I buy a lot of DLC.

Further more, what do you think the gamers selling their games to gamestop are doing with the money they make? They are buying even more brand new games. This is why gamestop gives those specials of turn in a top title game and get a extra credit to a brand new top title game. If there was no second hand market. All those kids with the disposable cash to buy brand new games will be more selective in which ones they buy. It's easier to buy brand new games when you are getting 5-20 bucks off via a trade in.

I don't see what EA did with ME2 and Dragon age being bad. Not having the free codes in no way effects your ability to play the game. You just don't get some free items. Without the cerberus network your game really wouldn't be impacted in any significant way. This is a great way to encourage first sale. Buy removing significant portions of a game to encourage first sale is just a bad idea imho.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

I don't see what EA did with ME2 and Dragon age being bad. Not having the free codes in no way effects your ability to play the game. You just don't get some free items. Without the cerberus network your game really wouldn't be impacted in any significant way. This is a great way to encourage first sale. Buy removing significant portions of a game to encourage first sale is just a bad idea imho.

I pretty much agree because Cerebrus does not remove any vital portions of the game. I don't like that it is a one time only use code, but that's kind of the point isn't it? I just won't buy the DLC for those 2 games....not my problem. I will also be wary of future titles with any kind of "extras" for pre-ordering. I pre-ordered MW2 for 360 AND PS3, got both, and was very disappointed. Where is my incentive for spending $120 on 2 new games and not even playing them anymore after a couple of weeks because it blows fat KACK? That is kind of my point. They have no more right to do these things than we do to demand money back for games that suck a$$.

 

[Craig234]

Why would a company reduce prices if the customer was unable to buy it used? I suspect the prices would reduce at a slower pace then we currently experience today.

Everytime they sell a game to one person, if they're losing out on sales to customer #2 and customer #3 to used sales, they have to increase the price for the first sale to include the others, to make any money.

If they get the used people buying new copies, they can sell each one for a big discount and still make the same profit.

Competition in the market tends to drive prices down to the place they can make a decent but not big profit on average. That price is lowered the more buyers they get.

 

[Craig234]

im not, specifically for one reason.
out of production games would be impossible to find.

the used game market is still very important to me, as I can still buy titles for systems which havent been produced in years.
I still buy:
NES games
SNES games
GBC/GBA Games
PS1/PS2 Games

so... in 10 years now I find an old PS3 game I never played before... and if its up to sony, it wont be on the shelf.

Well, that's a fair point. I'm all for old games being available, too. We might have a conflicting interest there between avoiding used sales, and keeping old games available. I'd lean towards keeping old games available.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Everytime they sell a game to one person, if they're losing out on sales to customer #2 and customer #3 to used sales, they have to increase the price for the first sale to include the others, to make any money.

If they get the used people buying new copies, they can sell each one for a big discount and still make the same profit.

Competition in the market tends to drive prices down to the place they can make a decent but not big profit on average. That price is lowered the more buyers they get.

And? Tough shit. That's the market. I don't cut a check to ford or honda when I buy a used car, nor do I send one to Sony when I buy a used TV. Pretty much every other industry has a second hand market to compete with retail, why are video games any more special?

 

[PieIsAwesome]

I wouldn't buy console games that are neutered if not purchased new, unless they hit the typical $20 floor price for console games and the game is something I'm sure I want.

The 2 reasons I have a console to begin with are:

1. Convenience.
2. No tying games to CD keys or accounts or w/e limiting their ability to be resold. I can buy a used game and then sell it if I don't want it anymore and get some other game. Games don't become worthless once you register them to your PC or account.

When deciding "Hmmm should I get Mass Effect for 360 or PC" I choose 360 for the above reasons. Otherwise I'd just wait for the game to hit $5 or so on Steam. Sorry, not going to ever pay $60 for a game. The only exception would be if the game has the word "Starcraft" in its title.

 

[BoberFett]

Everytime they sell a game to one person, if they're losing out on sales to customer #2 and customer #3 to used sales, they have to increase the price for the first sale to include the others, to make any money.

If they get the used people buying new copies, they can sell each one for a big discount and still make the same profit.

Competition in the market tends to drive prices down to the place they can make a decent but not big profit on average. That price is lowered the more buyers they get.

Listen to lefty Craig cry about the poor corporations.

 

[bullbert]

Everytime they sell a game to one person, if they're losing out on sales to customer #2 and customer #3 to used sales, they have to increase the price for the first sale to include the others, to make any money.

If they get the used people buying new copies, they can sell each one for a big discount and still make the same profit.

Competition in the market tends to drive prices down to the place they can make a decent but not big profit on average. That price is lowered the more buyers they get.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The Console licensee is limiting the competition and driving the price UP with more sales. Even with 100x (or even 1000x) more sales per title now, the prices are 100% higher, than not too long ago.