Sony looking at Online Pass equivalent for first-party titles

Varik

Sony has told GamesIndustry.biz that it supports publisher initiatives to monetise second hand games consumers through online play, and that it is currently investing in a solution for its own first-party titles.
The move has been pioneered by Electronic Arts with Project $10 and refined through the Online Pass, which charges those that buy games second hand to access online multiplayer services, helping publishers recoup some money in the controversial pre-owned market.

"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 Sony's European president Andrew House in an interview published today.

"And we're exploring actively the same option for our own content."

While EA has been first to roll-out the practice across the EA Sports line-up, other companies including Red Faction publisher THQ and French firm Ubisoft are also putting systems in place.

Activision's Bobby Kotick has suggested the monetisation of online console play could go further, and that he'd like to see a subscription service for Call of Duty games, but House said Sony would "struggle" with that idea, and warned against a one-size-fits-all attitude to pricing.

"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."

Sony is making money from PSN with the recent introduction of PSN Plus, a premium subscription that bundles multiple free games, content and access to beta phases for a set fee.

Uptake is better than expected, said House, and the company is now beginning to analyse user patterns and observing the first consumer trends.

"It's interesting that there's been a more significant uptake on the annual subscriptions than there has been on the three months subscription, with the exception of Japan," detailed House.

"I think that we need to remain hard at work on ensuring the content offering and the content flow remain strong. I have a sense that there is a second tier of PSN users that are almost ready to sign up that are in something of a wait-and-see mode because they want to see a bit more of the roadmap and how it flows out and is it meaningful to them? Which is absolutely fair enough."

It's not just a successful service for Sony, said House, as the company gathers data to convince publishing partners that they can also take advantage of PSN Plus for marketing and sales boosts.

"As with any of these propositions we've got to validate it first and then show them some good viable data on it," he offered. "There's overall amongst publishers, certainly with European publishing partners, a good open flexibility to talk about different models and actively explore them.

"There's increasing recognition that within the network space for our audience it's a mistake to try and adopt a one-size-fits-all attitude. The network naturally leads you to a variety of business models. Creating multiple consumer options is the way to do that and publishers are latching on to that idea. Whether it's based around their own franchises or being part of a publisher-led initiative."

aperture_nuig

major bummer.
not a lot we can do about this really is there?

James Forde

they have us by the balls

WarZoneBrother

So I go into xtra vision rent out a game I want to try out to see if I like it online.. Go home to later find out I have to pay 10 bucks to play it :eek: is that the morale of the story? Damn thats pretty much a joke to be honest..

Jet Black

Electronic Arts are money grubbing bastards.

gizmo

WarZoneBrother wrote: »

So I go into xtra vision rent out a game I want to try out to see if I like it online.. Go home to later find out I have to pay 10 bucks to play it :eek: is that the morale of the story? Damn thats pretty much a joke to be honest..

No, for first time buyers and renters you may play the game online for 7 days without the use of a code. If you enjoy it then you buy the code, if not then you don't, simple as.

Jet Black wrote: »

Electronic Arts are money grubbing bastards.

Please do some background reading on the subject before making such ill-informed statements.

WarZoneBrother

gizmo wrote: »

No, for first time buyers and renters you may play the game online for 7 days without the use of a code. If you enjoy it then you buy the code, if not then you don't, simple as.


Please do some background reading on the subject before making such ill-informed statements.

Guess i'll never buy a second hand FPS game as they are the only games I play online :rolleyes:

Jet Black

gizmo wrote: »

Please do some background reading on the subject before making such ill-informed statements.

I stick by my statement. The games industry is still doing well despite the econimic downturn.

EA just piss me off in general because its quantity over quality with them.

gizmo

WarZoneBrother wrote: »

Guess i'll never buy a second hand FPS game as they are the only games I play online :rolleyes:

I don't get the point of the sarcastic roll eyes?

Jet Black wrote: »

I stick by my statement. The games industry is still doing well despite the econimic downturn.

While the industry held out initially during the downturn it has, over the last year or so, begun to be severely affected. Game sales have been down on an almost monthly basis and while there have been a few stand-out tiles released, they're in the minority by far. You also have large numbers of job losses as the larger companies downsize in order to cut costs and the smaller, independent companies are forced to fold.

Jet Black wrote: »

EA just piss me off in general because its quantity over quality with them.

What you're describing is more the old EA. While they're still not saints by any means, they've been investing in new IP, expanding studios to work on these titles, diversifying their existing IPs to reach new audiences and also improving it considerably.

Varik

gizmo wrote: »

What you're describing is more the old EA. While they're still not saints by any means, they've been investing in new IP, expanding studios to work on these titles, diversifying their existing IPs to reach new audiences and also improving it considerably.

The very old and evil EA, who were followed by the very good EA who didn't do so good at making money, and who were in turn were followed by the current EA.

gizmo

Varik wrote: »

The very old and evil EA, who were followed by the very good EA who didn't do so good at making money, and who were in turn were followed by the current EA.

I'd consider the old EA to have died following the horrible DICE Canada incident to be honest. Since then they've done nothing but improve as far as I'm concerned. Even new IP which wasn't as successful as originally hoped, such as Mirror's Edge, is getting a sequel. On top of this we had the changes I outlined below as well as the release of titles like Brutal Legend and the output of the rather successful EA Partners program, such as Deathspank and Shank. All in all not too shabby for a company which inspire the same level of revulsion from gamers as Activision do now.

As for the online pass thing, there is a subtle way of handling it. THQ, unfortunately, don't seem to understand this.

super_furry

I don't really mind it too much. There's usually very little price difference between a second-hand game and a new game in a game store and I'd honestly rather give the developers the cash.

WarZoneBrother

gizmo wrote: »

I don't get the point of the sarcastic roll eyes?

Nor do I, it just adds more to the message lol :P

TotallyEpic

I agree with it. Publishers should get the money they deserve for the investment they make in a game. While I'd prefer that they do this with additional content other than online functionality, I can see why they're doing it.

Don't be mad at Sony, be mad at GameStop.

Big Knox

Not too bothered, rarely buy 2nd hand games anyway and the only ones I buy are games I wanted to play but never got around too (i.e single player games). Being honest I think games companies are doing the right thing here, gamers are very demanding and if we want companies to produce games of an excellent standard then the companies need the budget to do so. Simple really!

Grumpypants

TotallyEpic wrote: »

I agree with it. Publishers should get the money they deserve for the investment they make in a game. While I'd prefer that they do this with additional content other than online functionality, I can see why they're doing it.

Don't be mad at Sony, be mad at GameStop.

Very true Activision should charge 15 euro for COD WAW, MW2 and Black ops not 50. As they are nothing more than map packs with new guns.

gizmo

Grumpypants wrote: »

Very true Activision should charge 15 euro for COD WAW, MW2 and Black ops not 50. As they are nothing more than map packs with new guns.

That just shows a painful misunderstanding of the development process.