PSN Store Problems Prevent PS3 Dirt 3 Multiplayer

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

PSN Store Problems Prevent PS3 Dirt 3 Multiplayer

image

Fixing the problem would take longer than just waiting it out, says the game's developers.

While Sony has managed to get PSN back up and running again, the PSN Store is still out of action, and that's proving problematic in more ways than one. PS3 players of the newly released Dirt 3 have been unable to redeem the game's online pass - which is a requirement if they want to play online - and Codemasters says there's not a lot it can do about it.

While some developers have been able to temporarily remove the online pass stipulation from their PS3 games, Codemasters said that for Dirt 3 the code requirement is "hard-coded" into the game, and altering it would take far too long. "Changing this would require considerable development time and a patch which would need to go through the submission process," Codemasters said in a statement. "This in itself would be a longer process that waiting for Sony to bring the PSN Store back online."

Sony hasn't set a firm date for when the PSN Store will be restored, although it says it is aiming to have it back online by the end of the month. This situation also neatly illustrates one of the biggest potential problems with online passes, in that they leave players at the mercy of outside bodies to be able to get full functionality out of their games. Players getting locked out of content isn't going to happen that often, but it clearly can happen, and that's something that developers and publishers need to take into account.

Source: Eurogamer

Permalink

This is why online passes are a stupid idea. It relys on the idea that nothing will ever go wrong, which is a silly assumption to make. That's why we have back-up plans.

So basically, another form of copy-control is causing legitimate users problems again? Will wonders never cease.

Jumwa:
So basically, another form of copy-control is causing legitimate users problems again? Will wonders never cease.

Not copy protection, Online Passes and the like are there to ensure the company makes money off the sale of a game (because someone buying the game used (and remember that 0% of a used game sale goes to the company that made the game) will have to pay to get the benefit of the pass).

Oh man, that must serious suck for some people. They wait all that time to play it online, and PSN goes down. PSN comes back and they're all excited, then they realise they need to redeem the pass via Store... I'm not sure if I would be able to contain my rage at that point.

Online passes are so flippin gay. I don't care about the developer's making money, I just want to play the game. Telling me that buying used games is evil and morally wrong is just stupid and wasteful.

Jumwa:
So basically, another form of copy-control is causing legitimate users problems again? Will wonders never cease.

Well said. Online Passes are just greed by the publisher, they want to force every single user to pay for (part of) the game again, even though they already purchased the disk and the publisher already got money for it.
It's not like two or more people can play using the same disk simultaneously, so why this extortion? If I pass my game disk on to someone else, or resell it, the publisher has not lost a sale but simply their already sold unit gets further life.

Punish the customer? Not a good method to get their loyalty.

BadassCyborg:
Online passes are so flippin gay. I don't care about the developer's making money, I just want to play the game. Telling me that buying used games is evil and morally wrong is just stupid and wasteful.

Outta curiosity, if the developers don't make any money, how do you expect them to continue making games? Just wondering.

I'm sorry but given the intent behind this system, I really can't bring myself to have any sympathy for the people made this game. 'Shame about the people can't play it, however - but in this case I'm leaving the blame for that with the people felt the need to use this system in the first place.

Duskflamer:

Not copy protection, Online Passes and the like are there to ensure the company makes money off the sale of a game (because someone buying the game used (and remember that 0% of a used game sale goes to the company that made the game) will have to pay to get the benefit of the pass).

I said "copy control" not "copy protection" for an explicit purpose. And don't be fooled, this is definitely a method of copy control, for the exact reason you listed. They put measures in place to dictate how consumers used their product, and legitimate consumers are suffering for it as usual.

erbkaiser:

Jumwa:
So basically, another form of copy-control is causing legitimate users problems again? Will wonders never cease.

Well said. Online Passes are just greed by the publisher, they want to force every single user to pay for (part of) the game again, even though they already purchased the disk and the publisher already got money for it.
It's not like two or more people can play using the same disk simultaneously, so why this extortion? If I pass my game disk on to someone else, or resell it, the publisher has not lost a sale but simply their already sold unit gets further life.

Punish the customer? Not a good method to get their loyalty.

Huh? If we assume that the buyer to whom you resold the game would have to and was willing to buy it new if a second-hand market didn't exist, then of course the publisher has lost a sale.

JDKJ:
Huh? If we assume that the buyer to whom you resold the game would have to and was willing to buy it new if a second-hand market didn't exist, then of course the publisher has lost a sale.

The assumption is wrong. If someone would've bought it new, they probably will do so. Why do people buy games in the second-hand market? I'd wager mostly because of the price.
$/€60 for a new game is really expensive, and I certainly don't pay this much (with a few exceptions). If I want to play a game I'll usually wait a bit and then buy it second-hand from someone who already tired of it, so I get it for €30 max.

The only way I'd buy it new is if it is less expensive to start, or is on discount already. So in my case they haven't lost a sale since I would never have bought it for the price the publisher demands anyway -- instead they have the €60 from the initial purchaser, who played it for a while and then resold it for €30 to me. The end effect for the publisher is that they still sold one unit and one unit is being used, and for both me and the original purchaser there is effectively half the cost while we still both got to play.

Online Passes mess up this entire system just because the publisher feels entitled to extort more money from me just because I did not buy the game directly from them, but instead use something they've already been paid for in full.

Jumwa:

Duskflamer:

Not copy protection, Online Passes and the like are there to ensure the company makes money off the sale of a game (because someone buying the game used (and remember that 0% of a used game sale goes to the company that made the game) will have to pay to get the benefit of the pass).

I said "copy control" not "copy protection" for an explicit purpose. And don't be fooled, this is definitely a method of copy control, for the exact reason you listed. They put measures in place to dictate how consumers used their product, and legitimate consumers are suffering for it as usual.

It could be worse. At least under American law, the doctrine of first sale generally allows you to resell your video game and to do so without having to give the copyright holder a cut. In many European countries, "droit de suite" (i.e., the "right to follow") entitles the copyright holder to a cut from any second-hand sales.

erbkaiser:

JDKJ:
Huh? If we assume that the buyer to whom you resold the game would have to and was willing to buy it new if a second-hand market didn't exist, then of course the publisher has lost a sale.

The assumption is wrong. If someone would've bought it new, they probably will do so. Why do people buy games in the second-hand market? I'd wager mostly because of the price.
$/€60 for a new game is really expensive, and I certainly don't pay this much (with a few exceptions). If I want to play a game I'll usually wait a bit and then buy it second-hand from someone who already tired of it, so I get it for €30 max.

The only way I'd buy it new is if it is less expensive to start, or is on discount already. So in my case they haven't lost a sale since I would never have bought it for the price the publisher demands anyway -- instead they have the €60 from the initial purchaser, who played it for a while and then resold it for €30 to me. The end effect for the publisher is that they still sold one unit and one unit is being used, and for both me and the original purchaser there is effectively half the cost while we still both got to play.

Online Passes mess up this entire system just because the publisher feels entitled to extort more money from me just because I did not buy the game directly from them, but instead use something they've already been paid for in full.

I'm not so sure the assumption is wrong or that you can assume it's wrong based on your own personal buying decisions. I suspect that if there was no second-hand market for video games, sales in the first-hand market would increase. There's gotta be some percentage of second-hand buyers who, if the second-hand market didn't exist, would suck up the difference in price because they see the benefit of owning the game as outweighing the cost of it new versus the cost of it second-hand. Gotta be.

JDKJ:

It could be worse. At least under American law, the doctrine of first sale generally allows you to resell your video game and to do so without having to give the copyright holder a cut. In many European countries, "droit de suite" (i.e., the "right to follow") entitles the copyright holder to a cut from any second-hand sales.

Things can always be worse. Take that as a negative or a positive.

Regardless, the online pass system is another case of copy control hurting legitimate customers. I take that as a negative.

JDKJ:
[quote="erbkaiser" post="7.286993.11328105"]I'm not so sure the assumption is wrong or that you can assume it's wrong based on your own personal buying decisions. I suspect that if there was no second-hand market for video games, sales in the first-hand market would increase.

There you have it. The only reason for these schemes is to eliminate the second-hand market, so they can keep prices artificially inflated. This hurts customers, and only gives a short term profit to the publishers. In the end it will also hurt them.
A game that can be resold will be played by more people than one that is account locked somehow. Assuming both games sell as many copies (on the direct market), the non-restricted game will get far greater exposure and will have no stories of legitimate customers unable to access their content. The restricted game (e.g. DIRT3) will be less played, will have pissed off customers, and will generate bad will for both developer and publisher.
At least some consumers will take this into account when buying the next game from this publisher, so the publisher of the non-restricted game will end up selling more, having a bigger profit, and surviving longer than the restrictive one. Eventually at least.

Jumwa:

JDKJ:

It could be worse. At least under American law, the doctrine of first sale generally allows you to resell your video game and to do so without having to give the copyright holder a cut. In many European countries, "droit de suite" (i.e., the "right to follow") entitles the copyright holder to a cut from any second-hand sales.

Things can always be worse. Take that as a negative or a positive.

Regardless, the online pass system is another case of copy control hurting legitimate customers. I take that as a negative.

There's an argument to be made that the second-hand buyer hasn't been "hurt." Technically, what they purchased second-hand was the game content, not the on-line access. The on-line access isn't an inseparable part of the game that moves with it from buyer to seller. Once it's been redeemed by the original buyer, it dies. That the second-hand buyers eventually have to pay for that access isn't a "hurt." It's simply them buying something they never bought in the first place.

JDKJ:

It could be worse. At least under American law, the doctrine of first sale generally allows you to resell your video game and to do so without having to give the copyright holder a cut. In many European countries, "droit de suite" (i.e., the "right to follow") entitles the copyright holder to a cut from any second-hand sales.

sooo assuming in the us the publisher sees no money from a 2nd hand sale it makes sense they'd make people who buy used pay to get online.. but if in the rest of the world they do already get a cut on a used sale (not sure if they do) how come we have to buy the online codes to? other than greed i spose

cant say im a big fan of having to pay just because the us of a has to

but meh im prolly wrong and i buy most of my games new anyway so it doesnt bother me much

JDKJ:

There's an argument to be made that the second-hand buyer hasn't been "hurt." Technically, what they purchased second-hand was the game content, not the on-line access. The on-line access isn't an inseparable part of the game that moves with it from buyer to seller. That the second-hand buyers eventually have to pay for that access isn't a "hurt." It's simply them buying something they never bought in the first place.

This isn't about second-hand buyers. This is about the original purchasers being incapable of using a feature of the game they paid for because of a copy-control system put in place.

You're fudging the issue entirely.

erbkaiser:

JDKJ:
[quote="erbkaiser" post="7.286993.11328105"]I'm not so sure the assumption is wrong or that you can assume it's wrong based on your own personal buying decisions. I suspect that if there was no second-hand market for video games, sales in the first-hand market would increase.

There you have it. The only reason for these schemes is to eliminate the second-hand market, so they can keep prices artificially inflated. This hurts customers, and only gives a short term profit to the publishers. In the end it will also hurt them.
A game that can be resold will be played by more people than one that is account locked somehow. Assuming both games sell as many copies (on the direct market), the non-restricted game will get far greater exposure and will have no stories of legitimate customers unable to access their content. The restricted game (e.g. DIRT3) will be less played, will have pissed off customers, and will generate bad will for both developer and publisher.
At least some consumers will take this into account when buying the next game from this publisher, so the publisher of the non-restricted game will end up selling more, having a bigger profit, and surviving longer than the restrictive one. Eventually at least.

Why are you assuming it's intended to eliminate the second-hand market? It could just as likely, if not more likely, be a means of generating additional revenue from second-hand sales. In fact, that's precisely what it does. It isn't eliminating the second-hand market.

Jumwa:

JDKJ:

There's an argument to be made that the second-hand buyer hasn't been "hurt." Technically, what they purchased second-hand was the game content, not the on-line access. The on-line access isn't an inseparable part of the game that moves with it from buyer to seller. That the second-hand buyers eventually have to pay for that access isn't a "hurt." It's simply them buying something they never bought in the first place.

This isn't about second-hand buyers. This is about the original purchasers being incapable of using a feature of the game they paid for because of a copy-control system put in place.

You're fudging the issue entirely.

But I wasn't the one who cast the issue as intended to screw second-hand purchasers.

Doesn't really affect me much, since I'll just complete the singleplayer while I wait haha.

JDKJ:
Same difference. First-hand or second-hand, the argument still stands that neither buyer has bought on-line access. They've only bought game content. On-line access costs both an additional fee.

That is a really weird justification. If a game is advertised with online gameplay, of course this is part of the game. Locking this out because of issues with the service (PSN store down) or because of greed (Online Pass) is nonsense.
The only way to do this in an acceptable way (IMO) is to sell the game without multiplayer, and then sell a multiplayer addon as DLC. That way nobody is suckered into thinking they are buying a complete game when actually part of it is locked behind an extra paywall.

Of course then the game they actually sell will be singleplayer only, and this should reflect itself in a more robust singleplayer experience and possibly a lower price (e.g. €10).

JDKJ:

Same difference. First-hand or second-hand, the argument still stands that neither buyer has bought on-line access. They've only bought game content. On-line access costs both an additional fee.

Once again, that is entirely false. The original buyer HAS purchased online access, it comes in the box. They however can not use the feature they paid for because of these copy-control measures.

"DiRT 3 owners must redeem the in-box VIP pass to unlock competitive multiplayer..."

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/117/1170571p1.html?RSSwhen2011-05-25_035900&RSSid=1170571&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ignfeeds%2Fall+%28IGN+Complete%29

Jumwa:

JDKJ:

Same difference. First-hand or second-hand, the argument still stands that neither buyer has bought on-line access. They've only bought game content. On-line access costs both an additional fee.

Once again, that is entirely false. The original buyer HAS purchased online access, it comes in the box. They however can not use the feature they paid for because of these copy-control measures.

"DiRT 3 owners must redeem the in-box VIP pass to unlock competitive multiplayer..."

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/117/1170571p1.html?RSSwhen2011-05-25_035900&RSSid=1170571&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ignfeeds%2Fall+%28IGN+Complete%29

I edited my post.

That's just deflecting. The issue I set out in the beginning was that legitimate consumers were being hurt by copy-control. Nothing you've said has shown any refutation of my point.

erbkaiser:

JDKJ:
Same difference. First-hand or second-hand, the argument still stands that neither buyer has bought on-line access. They've only bought game content. On-line access costs both an additional fee.

That is a really weird justification. If a game is advertised with online gameplay, of course this is part of the game. Locking this out because of issues with the service (PSN store down) or because of greed (Online Pass) is nonsense.
The only way to do this in an acceptable way (IMO) is to sell the game without multiplayer, and then sell a multiplayer addon as DLC. That way nobody is suckered into thinking they are buying a complete game when actually part of it is locked behind an extra paywall.

Of course then the game they actually sell will be singleplayer only, and this should reflect itself in a more robust singleplayer experience and possibly a lower price (e.g. €10).

I took that back.

And I don't think it's fair to say that they're "locking it out" because PSN Store is down. It's because PSN Store is down that the value cannot be redeemed. And they claim it'll take longer to re-code it so as to remove the redemption requirement than it will take for PSN Store to be back up online.

Jumwa:
That's just deflecting. The issue I set out in the beginning was that legitimate consumers were being hurt by copy-control. Nothing you've said has shown any refutation of my point.

How exactly are they being "hurt?" You never made that point clear.

JDKJ:

How exactly are they being "hurt?" You never made that point clear.

If you don't consider not receiving a service you paid for being hurt, I've got some stuff I'm looking to unload, and I think you're just the person to buy.

Ya know I just thought of this but... how people who do these things consider doing like free weekends or other various days off for anyone who doesn't have a code activated yet.

Like the 1st and 3rd weekend of any month, every Tuesday and Thursday or etc. the point is it would allow used/rental players a chance to play online or to boost online play on certain time periods like how Transformers:War for Cybertron has bonus exp weekend days.

Jumwa:

JDKJ:

How exactly are they being "hurt?" You never made that point clear.

If you don't consider not receiving a service you paid for being hurt, I've got some stuff I'm looking to unload, and I think you're just the person to buy.

But being unable to receive the service they've paid for isn't a product of the redemption requirement per se. That's got more to do with the PSN Store and less to do with the redemption requirement. That the service cannot be received is directly attributable to the fact that the point of redemption (i.e., the PSN Store) is experiencing technical difficulties and isn't taking redemptions at the moment. It's not attributable to the mere fact of the redemption requirement.

Shit happens, it dont bother me.
I understand why they do this and will leave them to it.

JDKJ:

But being unable to receive the service they've paid for isn't a product of the redemption requirement per se. That's got more to with the the PSN Store and less to do with the redemption requirement. That the service cannot be received is directly attributable to the fact that the point of redemption (i.e., the PSN Store) is experiencing technical difficulties and isn't taking redemption at the moment. It's not attributable to the mere fact of the redemption requirement.

You are splitting hairs. And that also doesn't address your last issue. You're obviously just struggling to "win the argument" instead of just treating this discussion as a means to come to a better understanding of the issue. I'm not out to one-up you here, I am just here to discuss politely. : )

The fact is that this problem wouldn't exist without the copy-control measure. They put in place a system that makes the legitimate product more susceptible to failure. That was my point, and regardless of whether it was the PSN loss that caused it, or a meteorite hitting their own personal online pass redemption server, it remains true.

Jumwa:

JDKJ:

But being unable to receive the service they've paid for isn't a product of the redemption requirement per se. That's got more to with the the PSN Store and less to do with the redemption requirement. That the service cannot be received is directly attributable to the fact that the point of redemption (i.e., the PSN Store) is experiencing technical difficulties and isn't taking redemption at the moment. It's not attributable to the mere fact of the redemption requirement.

You are splitting hairs. And that also doesn't address your last issue. You're obviously just struggling to "win the argument" instead of just treating this discussion as a means to come to a better understanding of the issue. I'm not out to one-up you here, I am just here to discuss politely. : )

The fact is that this problem wouldn't exist without the copy-control measure. They put in place a system that makes the legitimate product more susceptible to failure. That was my point, and regardless of whether it was the PSN loss that caused it, or a meteorite hitting their own personal online pass redemption server, it remains true.

It's a hair that withstands splitting, if you ask me. Your argument is akin to saying that the online service Xbox Live per se "hurts" legitimate consumers because it's been taken off-line for maintenance in the wake of a cyber-attack with the result that subscribers cannot receive the value for which they paid. And that, if you ask me, is a ridiculous argument. It's not Xbox Live as a service that's "hurting" the consumer. It's the fact that it was taken off-line for maintenance that's "hurting" the consumer.

Of the two statements: "Online Pass cannot be redeemed because of Online Pass" and "Online Pass cannot be redeemed because PSN Store is off-line," the latter is true and the former is false.

If the PSN Store never goes off-line, then there's no problem with Online Pass. That it has gone off-line is the cause of the problem with Online Pass.

JDKJ:

Of the two statements: "Online Pass cannot be redeemed because of Online Pass" and "Online Pass cannot be redeemed because PSN Store is off-line," the latter is true and the former is false.

But I agree with you there. Online pass cannot be redeemed because the PSN store is offline. However, that's a built-in problem with the Online Pass system, so it doesn't get an all-clear because of it. It's not comparable to your Xbox Live example, as Xbox Live is added value and features, it's not just an added barrier to play.

If they didn't tie the original consumers online play to an Online Pass, then this wouldn't be an issue, would it?

You can make the argument that the Online Pass system is justified to protect them from second hand sales, but to say that the system hasn't caused problems for legitimate purchasers of the original product is absurd.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here