Warning: imagejpeg(/home/bedrooms/public_html/images/2010/08/CashGrab-100x100.jpg): failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/bedrooms/public_html/wp-includes/class-wp-image-editor.php on line 405

Warning: getimagesize() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/bedrooms/public_html/wp-content/themes/minimum/functions.php on line 1595

Warning: basename() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/bedrooms/public_html/wp-content/themes/minimum/functions.php on line 1596

Sony Looks to Implement “Project 10 Dollar” for 1st Party Titles 
  TweetTweet

Geoffrey Tim
August 24, 2010 at 10:30 am

CashGrab

EA, you bastards! Look what you’ve done! at some point this generation, EA decided they weren’t making enough money from the sale of games, especially the sale of used games – where they make not a damned thing. They implemented “Project 10 Dollar,” an incentive of sorts to get people to purchase their games new instead of 2nd hand. New games would be sold with an “online pass” – a single use token, enabling basic features like online multiplayer.

2nd hand games would more often than not have this code missing – so purchasers of used games would have to pony up money for the privilege. Rival publisher THQ soon followed suit..and now it looks like Sony may do the same.

“On the principle of making online portions of the game available or unlocked from the disc-based release for a fee, we’re broadly supportive of that,” said SCEE president Andrew House to Gamesindustry.biz .”And we’re exploring actively the same option for our own content.

That’s not to say that they’ll be charging for online multiplayer, per se.

“In terms of just a charge for basic online play, that’s something that we have to talk about a lot more and we struggle with a little bit because we feel very vindicated and base a lot of the success of PSN today – a 70 per cent connection rate across consoles – on the fact that we’ve removed that major initial barrier to entry.”

I understand that publishers want to make the most money they can from the games they invest so heavily in, and that used game sales rob them of income – but I’d really prefer their incentives included new features and content, instead of just enabling basic features we’ve all become accustomed to.

Source : GI.Biz

I'm old, grumpy and more than just a little cynical. One day, I found myself in possession of a NES, and a copy of Super Mario Bros 3. It was that game that made me realise that games were more than just toys to idly while away time - they were capable of being masterpieces.I'm here now, looking for more of those masterpieces.I am also the emperor of the backend

  • http://www.facebook.com/jannie.theron pantsula

    Every last drop…

  • RSA-Ace

    The second hand market is basically the same as piracy to publishers…

  • Bobby Kotick

    I would venture a guess that they consider the second hand market to be even worse than software piracy, hence the push to curb it. They have to be careful because this sort of behaviour is anti-consumer, and it’s only a matter of time before someone takes them to task for it.

    Anyway, EA is climbing back on my list of fail.

  • Bobby Kotick

    Sony can go on there as well.

  • D4RKL1NG

    What’s next? Paying in order to get the protective wrapping off your game? :pouty:

  • Bobby Kotick

    Exactly D4RKL1NG, this is getting ridiculous.

    By the way, you know what… THQ can go fuck themselves.
    http://kotaku.com/5620280/thq-buying-used-games-is-cheating

  • Hayted

    Oh Sony it ain’t so! :shocked:

  • Bonk is back in town

    There is absolutely no difference between 2nd hand sales and piracy whatsoever.

  • Bobby Kotick

    Please elaborate Bonk, because if you’re right, I’m off to go pirate some games.

  • Bobby Kotick

    Let’s see why software piracy is not the same as the second-hand market.

    For one thing, the Right of First Sale (which ultimately allows you to sell something 2nd hand) is crucial in capitalism and the free-market system, and it protects your right to rather buy a cheaper second-hand car (instead of a much more expensive newer model), or even buy a pre-owned DVD from your local Mr Video.

    The real reason why developers and publishers want to curb this market is ultimately to maximise profits (which in itself is not a big deal and completely understandable), however when it affects the right of the consumer, that’s where you start running into trouble. It is your right to want to buy an item at a cheaper price, and that holds especially true for a second hand item.

    The second-hand market is actually crucial to the whole system, without it, you actually remove secondary business between retailers and consumers, and you run the risk of biting the hand that feeds you.

    Any company that engages in this anti-consumer behaviour will be boycotted by me. It’s that simple. You may say, but Bobby you’re just one “elitist asshole” n00b, which is true, however consumer rights are universal, and there are thousands like me who are educated and consciousness consumers.

    Incidentally, and this relates to the push to curb piracy through DRM (which is also understandable), you are actually allowed to make copies of games, DVDs, CDs, books etc. as defined under copyright legislation, provided it’s for “fair use” (in other words, you’re not going to sell it, distribute it etc.). A lot is said about the UELAs and end user agreements in games, but they’re not as legally robust as you might think.

    Gamers and related consumers just haven’t had the need to test them.

  • Steve Hofmeyr

    I disagree.

    Second hand sales can provide gamers with funding to buy first hand games. Many people I know trade in lots of second hand games to get a discount.
    Further to that, having a strong second hand market for your product will increase it’s value to the consumer. How many games of R600 will you buy if you knew you can’t trade it in or sell it? How many cars would you buy if you can’t sell it second hand?
    They are shooting themselves in the foot IMO.

  • Steve Hofmeyr

    For once I absolutely agree with you Bobby. :shocked:

  • Bobby Kotick

    Are you disagreeing with me for being in support of the second hand market (which I notice you are as well) or are you merely disagreeing because you like to troll Bobby Kotick? :happy:

    But that’s exactly the point, the second market actually keeps gaming alive, because it allows many to sell and trade and buy new games.

    The developers and publishers are merely greedy in this regard.

  • Steve Hofmeyr

    I meant I disagreed with RSA-Ace. I’m in favour of second hand sales. Normally I would have taken the opportunity to troll you as per normal :angel: but this is an issue I feel very strongly about.

  • Bonk is back in town

    I think you and I have spoken about this before. Anyways here I go (I like to play devil’s advocate). Developers have always argued that games software is Work of a Movie’ and that ‘Work of a Movie’ has unrestricted rights. One therefore assume that any sales of second hand video games without the express approval of the copyright holder are illegal, because of the unrestricted distribution rights.

    Now the counter argument has always been that games software are not (Work of a Movie,) and that distribution rights of the patent lapses on the ‘first sale’. Fair enough I agree, but is it true that the second hand market increases sales, since it is argued that video games are marketed to children who would otherwise not be able to afford other games if they can’t sell their current games?

    Also if the distribution right of the patent falls away at the first sale then surely one is allowed upload your game to a p2p network. Or do people think you can’t back-up your game and then resell it?

  • Bobby Kotick

    You never really own the “rights to the game” but rather the right to make use of it (hence why the Berne convention and fair use principles still apply), therefore when you sell the game to a third party, the “right to make use of the game” transfers to them.

    Therefore, if you still have copies of the game you’re required to delete them because you no longer own the original, nor can you upload them to a p2p network, because it goes against “fair use”, since you’re now distributing the game.

  • Bonk is back in town

    And why would you delete them I may ask?

  • Bobby Kotick

    Same reason you wouldn’t torrent and download the pirated game to begin with. :happy:

  • http://www.lazygamer.co.za Geoffrey Tim

    Moral imperative.

  • Bonk is back in town

    Yes humans are known for their ‘fair use’ initiatives.

  • Bobby Kotick

    Perhaps, but not everyone who are in a position to commit a crime do so. Similarly, not every gamer with an internet connection have or will pirate a game.

    Anyway, I think we’ve gone off-topic a bit :P

  • Bobby Kotick

    My point is that “fair use” is protected under copyright legislation and the assertion that copying (of games, movies or music CDs) under “fair use” is illegal is incorrect. Whether people abide by the inherent limitations of “fair use” is really their prerogative, but if you’re pirating games (i.e. digitally distributing, selling etc.), you’re committing a crime.

    When it comes to the second-hand game market, the right of first sale merely means you have the right to sell and buy second-hand games, provided the same rights are conferred between the parties. In other words, a buyer of a second-hand item should not have less rights… etc. etc.

  • RSA-Ace

    I suppose the money still goes to new games. People that sell games are people that buy games.

    It still doesn’t balance out as much as I’d like though. I wouldn’t mind if developers could get a bit of the pie in second hand games. Have you looked at what american stores like GameStop make in the second hand market – it’s crazy…

  • Bonk is back in town

    I don’t think we have gone off-topic. I remember that Developers, Sony included argued about this in the mid-90s that the selling of second-hand games are illegal and tried to force wholesalers, shops etc to stop selling second hand games. Now we all know that they failed in forcing shops to stop selling second hand games, but I think devs do get upset when somebody else makes a profit on the back of another person’s work.

    If the right of first buyer is the same as the second then surely charging the second buyer is illegal in terms of Anti-Monopoly Law.