PSN Pass Makes Uncharted 3's Online Content Possible, Says Dev

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

PSN Pass Makes Uncharted 3's Online Content Possible, Says Dev

image

Keeping Uncharted 3's multiplayer running would be difficult if everyone playing hadn't paid, says Naughty Dog.

Naughty Dog, developers of the Uncharted series, says that without the money from Sony's PSN Pass it wouldn't be able to afford to include as much online content as it has with Uncharted 3, and would possibly have to separate the online and offline content into separate products.

"We're giving out a huge amount of content," said Uncharted 3 director Justin Richmond, "and part of the reason for the online pass is that when that stuff goes online, it isn't free. We have to pay for servers and all this different stuff to maintain it, and so at some point, you know, games have to make money." Richmond also said that besides bandwidth costs, the actual content - which he said was different from anything else in the industry - had taken a lot of time, and presumably money, to create.

He said that the online content wasn't just a "throw away death match," and that the co-op mode was essentially an entire alternate history. In fact, he said that if played in the correct order, the co-op missions told a single, continuous story. He also said - predictably enough - that the sheer amount of content made it worth the price of admission.

Sony must have projections and estimates about how much money it can expect to make from the PSN Pass; otherwise Richmond's comments just seem silly. It's also a slightly disingenuous argument, because pre-owned sales don't add additional load on the game's servers; they just replace one user with another. Online passes are a great way for publishers and developers to try and make some money on pre-owned sales, but acting like it's the only way that significant online components are viable just isn't true.

Uncharted 3 comes out for PS3 on November 3rd.

Source: The Sixth Axis

Permalink

Epic eye roll for this nonsense.

Translation: We want to make people who buy used pay us. Either $10 for the pass or $60 for the game. They'll have two choices, since they didn't like the game enough (or didn't have enough money) to get it new: Pay extra, or Don't buy it.

They can't show numbers and magically say "These are the people who wouldn't have bought the game, but did/didn't", this online pass is desperation of the worst kind.

In other words, "we're screwing over our customers with a defective product."

Actually, the biggest cost for developers right now is not the second hand market but development itself. They should not develop games at all and just take the money directly from our paychecks and provide no product or service. They have to do what's best for the industry, after all.

Haha, what nonsense. Even if you buy a used copy of the game, the person who originally bought it payed for the use of the server, and they are no longer playing, meaning it doesn't require more server space than actual sales.

This whole pass thing is nonsense, and I get tired of these companies shoveling lies to make up for their lack of proper game development. If the game was that good, no one would get rid of it. If the online component was going to be worth anything, people would keep playing it long after the completion of the campaign. I find it rather amusing that they are already telling us how short and ultimately useless the game is going to be.

Also, Gamestop will still just lower the price. They will make some kind of deal like: if you buy it used for $55, you will get the online pass for free. That way they can sell a used copy to someone who isn't interested in the online for $55 still, with an option to take or leave the online pass. So, they will shovel it to customers, make a little less money off of it by giving Sony their money... and then all the companies will continue to uselessly complain about used sales.

without the money from Sony's PSN Pass it wouldn't be able to afford to include as much online content as it has with Uncharted 3, and would possibly have to separate the online and offline content into separate products.

Really?!?! Thats an option /raises hand Well sign me up for a single player game then! Why didnt you people say that before?!

Seriously. Heres a fix to the problem.. Dont offer the multiplayer. Honestly, I would not mind seeing that. An alternate reality where even though there is internet access available people rarely play anything but single player games. In that world there are multiplayer games, but they tend to be more like expansions to an already existing single player affair. That way you have two different time tables, design expectatons and the freedom to not try to cram it all into the same catch all package.

Notthatbright:
Translation: We want to make people who buy used pay us. Either $10 for the pass or $60 for the game. They'll have two choices, since they didn't like the game enough (or didn't have enough money) to get it new: Pay extra, or Don't buy it.

They can't show numbers and magically say "These are the people who wouldn't have bought the game, but did/didn't", this online pass is desperation of the worst kind.

Buying used within the first 4-5 months of the game being released is desperation of the worst kind. You know, that window where it's still only $5 cheaper than the new product, and the new product has gone on sale multiple times at other retailers, but people will still bitch at publishers, because they're lazy and can't be assed to find sales.

Baresark:
If the game was that good, no one would get rid of it.

Bullshit.

I honestly don't see what everyone's problem is. I would gladly pay less money if it meant I didn't have to put up with MP.

...or should that be the other way round?

Nah, that sounds about right.

EDIT

Frostbite3789:

Baresark:
If the game was that good, no one would get rid of it.

Bullshit.

QFT

Rooster Cogburn:
In other words, "we're screwing over our customers with a defective product."

Actually, the biggest cost for developers right now is not the second hand market but development itself. They should not develop games at all and just take the money directly from our paychecks and provide no product or service. They have to do what's best for the industry, after all.

That's hilarious but true.
It seems like there's a ton of redundancy in development and they really need to simplify shit. Every time gamers complain about prices and stupid schemes like online pass, the publishers complain about development costs when it's their own stupid fault. Games have always been expensive to make yet the good ones make a hell of a lot of money.
I would've hoped that it would just lead to less shovelware over time but I guess publisher CEOs have brother in laws who they need to give jobs to as well.
Also, when are they finally going to demand a single format. If you could use the same disc in a pc, 360, or ps3 they would save tons of money...and that's not even taking into consideration the packaging costs or the fact that many of us ps3 owners probably would buy more $60 games if we could get the same quality product that the 360 usually (and the pc often) gets. Now I know that's ultimately up to the platform developers like Sony to actually act like grownups and cooperate, but there's a lot of leverage the big devs have as well.
But that's not really relevant in terms of this game anyway.

So many games this gen have been hyped up for this and that and very few of them have come close to the hype. I'm still renting this but if there's really so much value in the online that I can't try during the rental, I'm not likely to buy it.

Wow, this is the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.

If multiplayer is so damn financially straining on you, then don't put multiplayer into the fucking game!!

And I have the multiplayer thanks to Subway. It's fun, but nowhere near as fun as you think, Naughty Dog. I had to get it through subway because of your god damn pass. My brother and I are splitting the cost for the game, we are BOTH paying for it. But only one of us would be able to play online thanks to this crap.

And what about when time goes on? When the new buyers have long-since paid for their slot on your servers? Will you ask them to re-buy the multiplayer? Because judging by how you're acting, that seems like a possibility of happening.

One of the most subsidized industries in the US...and they still whine they don't have enough money. Bite me and give us our tax dollars back then. I don't really know why the industry is subsidized in the first place.

For some reason I'm doubting Uncharted 3 isn't going to make much money.

Irridium:
Will you ask them to re-buy the multiplayer? Because judging by how you're acting, that seems like a possibility of happening.

By their logic, yes. Unless they just forgot that no matter how many times a game trades hands, the number of players on the server is the same.

Release server software -> Free servers for forever.

:/

Unless this 'new, innovative multiplayer experience' = 100+ hours of innovative co-op experience and over 70+ gametypes spanning over 20+ map, I'm gonna call bullcrap.

That's the most stupid thing i've ever heard. Someone buying a used game doesn't create a new player online it just replaces an old one.

Rooster Cogburn:
In other words, "we're screwing over our customers with a defective product."

not correct at all since used buyers are not their customers
their customers are getting a fully functional game(where you have to spend 10 seconds to type a code)

actually i'm a bit surprised about this negative reaction
sure it's cool now to bash Sony and EA but i thought of naughty dog as a fairly likable publisher that people would forgive
seems i erred on that

sindremaster:
That's the most stupid thing i've ever heard. Someone buying a used game doesn't create a new player online it just replaces an old one.

an old one who wouldn't be online anymore thus not costing the company anymore money
the new player creates costs where there wouldn't be any

Argh!

Ever since Jimmy Sterling threw this "one player replaces another" line out it's been driving me up the wall. Yes, the number of players remains the same but if they figure you are going to play the game for 12 months (totally arbitrary number) then they've priced it that one new purchase funds a player's spot on the server for 12 months.

Once you sell it used (because you're bored of it and don't play any more) you increase the load on the server for another 12 months (substitute arbitrary period here) that they have received no income for. You've generated costs without providing any income.

Everyone is acting like server costs are one-off ("I paid for server power for 10,000 users") and not on-going ("I pay for the bandwidth users consume each month, the server power each month, the maintenance and replacement of hardware each month, etc, etc").

I'm not weighing in on the whole "pre-owned" argument, but can we drop this false line of reasoning please?

Translation:

Sony: Yo guys, gamers are starting to work out that Online Passes are a shit idea which we're using to extoll extra money out of gamers. We want you to say something about how it's actually a great idea.

Naughty Dog: ...erm, okay. How about 'Online Passes make online content possible, and stop us from going bankrupt and selling our kidneys on the black market."

Sony: I like your thinking, but that may be a bit bare-faced, don't you think?

Naughty Dog: You're right. We'll drop the 'kidney selling' part.

Frostbite3789:
Buying used within the first 4-5 months of the game being released is desperation of the worst kind. You know, that window where it's still only $5 cheaper than the new product, and the new product has gone on sale multiple times at other retailers, but people will still bitch at publishers, because they're lazy and can't be assed to find sales.

Bullshit. There's absolutely no 'you're an ass if you buy used' window of nonopportunity. Get the hell off your high horse.

The reality is, if people want to sell used, then it's acceptable to want to buy used. Supply and demand. Stop pretending buying OR selling used is some evil that must be quashed. It isn't. Nor are people being bad for buying used, and not doing power trading or whatever frou frou nonsense it takes to get a deal. This is buying a game, not extreme couponing, nor are you special for doing extra power trading.

Baresark:
If the game was that good, no one would get rid of it.

Bullshit.

Actually, he speaks the truth. The bane of used sales is quality. Good games are worth more because people are less willing to part ways with them. Some games will sell above their original price if the quality is there, and they go out of print. Reality disagrees with your 'bullshit' assessment.

And when I have to choose between 'how shit actually happens' and some guy on the internet who things used sales is bad, I'll take reality, thank you.

Ferrious:
Argh!

Ever since Jimmy Sterling threw this "one player replaces another" line out it's been driving me up the wall. Yes, the number of players remains the same but if they figure you are going to play the game for 12 months (totally arbitrary number) then they've priced it that one new purchase funds a player's spot on the server for 12 months.

Once you sell it used (because you're bored of it and don't play any more) you increase the load on the server for another 12 months (substitute arbitrary period here) that they have received no income for. You've generated costs without providing any income.

Everyone is acting like server costs are one-off ("I paid for server power for 10,000 users") and not on-going ("I pay for the bandwidth users consume each month, the server power each month, the maintenance and replacement of hardware each month, etc, etc").

I'm not weighing in on the whole "pre-owned" argument, but can we drop this false line of reasoning please?

So then will they charge people who buy new every 12 months to keep the servers up? Because eventually they'll be generating costs without any decent income. No matter what.

Irridium:
So then will they charge people who buy new every 12 months to keep the servers up? Because eventually they'll be generating costs without any decent income. No matter what.

No, because:

A) The market wouldn't accept that.
B) After 12 months most people have forgotten they even own the game. When they do remember they play for a bit and then move on. They generate low load. They do not generate the kind of load a new player does.
C) The developer/publisher has accepted that they will eventually be unable to sustain the infrastructure and will close the multiplayer down. They just expect B) to happen first for the majority of their customers.

I'm all for developers getting money from the sales they made and combating GameStop etc. as much as they can but do they really have to do this?

How retarded do they think gamers actually are to flat out lie like this?
Server costs are near to nothing, especially when you are using Peer-to-Peer protocols to host your "Online experiences" instead of Dedicated Servers like most console games do. The users are hosting the games and using their own bandwidth and the developer just needs a Master Server acknowledging that someone wants to play and there is another player hosting and bring them together via their IPs.

The main reason for "Online services" going down (see EA and some other companies) as fast as they are right now is because they want people to move on and buy their newest products and nothing else...

If servers and bandwidth would "cost them that much", how the hell do you think all these Free2Play games make a living on the PC with millions of players playing (League of Legends for instance has over 15 million registered accounts and they're also hosting the matches on their side) and them only getting money from a low number of players while the game itself is even free?

Or look at Blizzard, Valve and other devs who ran those "costly servers" for some of their games for over 10 years at no cost for the user, even managing to put in regular Patches and additional content with the sales they generated additionally over the years with games like StarCraft, Diablo II or Team Fortress/Counter Strike etc. (and they did that before they were "famous", one could say they've become "famous" because of it)

This is just a stupid argument and everyone using it to legitimize "Online Passes" and combating "Used Sales" (e.g. mostly GameStop and other huge retailers) should feel ashamed of themselves...

I don't see myself playing multiplayer as much as single player like the prequel. I only play Uncharted for the single player experience.

Frostbite3789:

Buying used within the first 4-5 months of the game being released is desperation of the worst kind. You know, that window where it's still only $5 cheaper than the new product, and the new product has gone on sale multiple times at other retailers, but people will still bitch at publishers, because they're lazy and can't be assed to find sales.

Really now? I didnt know that looking around and getting the best deal on a purchase was considered being desperate. I think the only person being desperate here is you as you desperatly try to justify buying a game at $60 when there is an identical one sitting next to it for $50 or less.

vivster:

Rooster Cogburn:
In other words, "we're screwing over our customers with a defective product."

not correct at all since used buyers are not their customers
their customers are getting a fully functional game(where you have to spend 10 seconds to type a code)

actually i'm a bit surprised about this negative reaction
sure it's cool now to bash Sony and EA but i thought of naughty dog as a fairly likable publisher that people would forgive
seems i erred on that

If I buy the game, I am the customer. And the product is defective. For starters, the online code business robs the game of some it's resale value. I can't loan it to a friend or give it away to my brother. At least, not in a fully functional state, and that's a load of horse hockey. And when man-bear-pig bricks my console and steals my account, I'll be left with half a product. I don't even participate in the second hand market, and this garbage prevents me from doing what I want with the product that I paid for. It's a defect, albeit an intentional one, and I will definitely think twice before purchasing any defective product.

Satsuki666:

Frostbite3789:

Buying used within the first 4-5 months of the game being released is desperation of the worst kind. You know, that window where it's still only $5 cheaper than the new product, and the new product has gone on sale multiple times at other retailers, but people will still bitch at publishers, because they're lazy and can't be assed to find sales.

Really now? I didnt know that looking around and getting the best deal on a purchase was considered being desperate. I think the only person being desperate here is you as you desperatly try to justify buying a game at $60 when there is an identical one sitting next to it for $50 or less.

I don't know who is desperate, but I do always wonder why people gamble on a used game for $55 when they could have it new for $60.

Naughty Dog seems to think that "1 person paying full price and playing the online for 2 years" and "1 person paying full price and playing for 1 year, then giving/selling to someone else who plays for one year" are fundamentally different, despite it costing them the EXACT SAME AMOUNT.

Wanting to include an online pass isn't the bad part. It's them being such assholes about it, and trying to use the most retarded reasoning that I've heard from any developer since, well, any developer trying to justify always-online DRM for PC games (Blizzard, Ubisoft...)

Satsuki666:

Frostbite3789:

Buying used within the first 4-5 months of the game being released is desperation of the worst kind. You know, that window where it's still only $5 cheaper than the new product, and the new product has gone on sale multiple times at other retailers, but people will still bitch at publishers, because they're lazy and can't be assed to find sales.

Really now? I didnt know that looking around and getting the best deal on a purchase was considered being desperate. I think the only person being desperate here is you as you desperatly try to justify buying a game at $60 when there is an identical one sitting next to it for $50 or less.

How can you justify gambling on a used game for $55 when you can go to Target, or Walmart, or any of the many other stores that sell video games, and find it for $50 or less brand-new?

I don't see desperation in people buying used games so close to release. I just see stupid people making stupid decisions.

Rooster Cogburn:

vivster:

Rooster Cogburn:
In other words, "we're screwing over our customers with a defective product."

not correct at all since used buyers are not their customers
their customers are getting a fully functional game(where you have to spend 10 seconds to type a code)

actually i'm a bit surprised about this negative reaction
sure it's cool now to bash Sony and EA but i thought of naughty dog as a fairly likable publisher that people would forgive
seems i erred on that

If I buy the game, I am the customer. And the product is defective. For starters, the online code business robs the game of some it's resale value. I can't loan it to a friend or give it away to my brother. At least, not in a fully functional state, and that's a load of horse hockey. And when man-bear-pig bricks my console and steals my account, I'll be left with half a product. I don't even participate in the second hand market, and this garbage prevents me from doing what I want with the product that I paid for. It's a defect, albeit an intentional one, and I will definitely think twice before purchasing any defective product.

wrong again
the customer bought a fully functioning game from the publisher
and then sold a defective product to you because he already used up a portion of a game
you are not the customer since you didn't pay squat to the people who produced this product
that's not the fault of the game company but the fault of your seller who made a functioning product less valuable by giving it away
it's not the company's fault if your seller scratched the disc before selling it to you

the developers and publisher do not intend it to be sold again so why should they give a shit about resell value?
the used game market has just been tolerated by the companies and then became an accepted concept and a given by consumers
that doesn't make it right or anything

welcome to capitalism
if you can't afford a new game you can't afford a new game
you neither have a right nor the obligation to own a certain game

Wait no... because if that's true then Naughtydog would only be able to run online if people do actually buy Preowned games...otherwise they wouldn't be gaining any extra money than they would with normal sales.

Basically then if no one buys preowned then they wouldn't have the extra preowned online pass money to run muliplayer.

What does a used game typically cost?

I mean, the price for a used game, plus the 10$ is no way near 60$, right?

Also, to people buying used games: Buy them online. You'll save money (which you can spend on online content or cookies etc.) AND the guy selling it will make more off the sale.

I think it's fair enough to pay 10$ extra if I want extra content. Now, I haven't the slightest clue what the Uncharted 3 online content is, but if it is worth it, sure, I'll cough up some extra dough.

...

Also, piracy. If you can't afford the game, download it, and pay when you can.
I know it's quite the taboo issue on The Escapist, but I'll admit I do it. What I also do is pay what I think the game is worth.

Indie games like Machinarium, Amnesia, Super Meat Boy and the newly released The Binding of Isaac, are good examples in which I payed more than the initial cost (I think I bought 3 copies of Machinarium and the soundtrack as well).

Games I don't want to pay for, I rarely finish. If I finish it, I deem it worth paying for.

The Humble Indie Bundles are awesome for using this payment method. They make millions on a few games, which on their own wouldn't make nearly as much.

aksel:
What does a used game typically cost?

I mean, the price for a used game, plus the 10$ is no way near 60$, right?

Also, to people buying used games: Buy them online. You'll save money (which you can spend on online content or cookies etc.) AND the guy selling it will make more off the sale.

I think it's fair enough to pay 10$ extra if I want extra content. Now, I haven't the slightest clue what the Uncharted 3 online content is, but if it is worth it, sure, I'll cough up some extra dough.

...

Also, piracy. If you can't afford the game, download it, and pay when you can.
I know it's quite the taboo issue on The Escapist, but I'll admit I do it. What I also do is pay what I think the game is worth.

Indie games like Machinarium, Amnesia, Super Meat Boy and the newly released The Binding of Isaac, are good examples in which I payed more than the initial cost (I think I bought 3 copies of Machinarium and the soundtrack as well).

Games I don't want to pay for, I rarely finish. If I finish it, I deem it worth paying for.

The Humble Indie Bundles are awesome for using this payment method. They make millions on a few games, which on their own wouldn't make nearly as much.

There is no excuse for piracy since when was a right that you have to have a game if you want something save up the money and buy it yourself. I don't walk into a shop take stuff of the shelves and go I will pay what I think it is worth later when I have the money.

Denamic:
Release server software -> Free servers for forever.

That would work if this was a PC title, but I can't see Sony allowing random servers onto the PSN network.

The most annoying part of this is not the online pass, it's the way they tried to justify it. I'd care a lot less about it if they weren't giving out crappy excuses.

This isn't going to stop second hand sales all that much, anyway. If I want a game to play online, I'll buy it new. If I'm buying a game somewhere down the line I'm probably getting it for a single player campaign.

getoffmycloud:

There is no excuse for piracy since when was a right that you have to have a game if you want something save up the money and buy it yourself. I don't walk into a shop take stuff of the shelves and go I will pay what I think it is worth later when I have the money.

If you walk into a shop and take, say, a pizza, then that pizza is gone. It's not the same. That analogy would only work if you could take the pizza, eat it, but the original pizza was still on the shelf.

 Pages 1 2 3 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