This isn't new, Sega did basically the same thing with PSO on Dreamcast.

Going against used games....first Liksang now this.... I hope SCE will pay some day, it will be better for industry and consumers.

1. Yes, I noticed it too, actually if the used game comes with its code there should be no problem, so that measure, if we understood correctly, should hurt only pirates and people who buy from sloppy used games retailers that buy and sell them not complete of all their parts. This should acquit Sony and furtherly prove wrong those attacking used games market.

Edit @Tallgeese101: I didn't know the code is single use.

2. I agree, well explained too. BTW, used games market helps the most avid gamers to self finance their passion and increase their purchase: they'll buy new games if they have the money, while it's not so sure that those buying used games from them would buy as many games at full price, so used games ban would hit new games market even more than doing the same in the car market, as cars are necessary, games aren't. Not to mention that piracy would increase.

Whatever works

Okay, adapting is the wrong term, but they are gaining new tools to keep people from trading in their games and holding on to them instead.

And I'm curious. How would you adapt to this new market? What business model do you see as fitting and also working?

Good! (lol)

Some quick thoughts.

First of all, the code is probably a one-time-use, so it is doubtful that a second person can use the code, even if it comes with a used game. Related to this, what do you do if you want to install on multiple PSPs or if you PSP is stole or broke - Do you have to pay $20 to play on-line again?

More to the point, Sony is attempting to decouple the cost of the game and the cost of the on-line play. It is selling both together -- but figures it can re-sell the on-line element each time the game changes hands.

Of course, if it does this, there is going to be some expectation that the on-line is up for a certain period of time -- and to some that might be FOREVER. The next step would be to define the on-line based upon a subscription for a particular length of time.

In other words, if Sony is doing this to restrict the transferring of games, what it has done is devalued the game when a person does to resell -- because you have to immediately deduct $20 from the value.

However, this might be another way to see if people are willing to play Sony games on line. Then Sony could sell on-line activities based upon a subscription basis -- either by game or to all of PSN.

Mike from Morgantown

I doubt it, the code should be coupled with your PSN account.

It's not really about business models actually. It is mainly about catering to the huge expanded market out there. Adding revenue streams from things like DLC and online play doesn't increase their actual market but rather "milks" the old market: Same customers, more money. But not all people are willing to download DLC or play via the internet and only so many people can be hyped for new games. When developers release some of their heavy hitters and are still in the red there is something wrong. The problem is that a lot of developers are gamers themselves and see the expanded market as some sort of "lol" market that only buys crappy games. That's not true, of course. All of my friends can distinguish a good game from a bad one and that's why sequels to minigame collections don't sell in most cases: People thought "hey that sounds cool" and bought a game and then realized the game was crap. That only works one time (hopefully ).

So now developers need to change their attitude towards that market. They have to realize there is a huge market out there they have to take serious. I think they are somewhat afraid because Nintendo really isn't doing things for the sake of the industry and doesn't depend on 3rd parties as much as Sony and Microsoft do (I'd be afraid, too if I was a 3rd party that had to compete with Nintendo's games as Nintendo has almost unlimited resources and very talented people, etc.). But basically if they are able to sell to the expanded market (which means producing games like Mario Bros. that core and casual gamers can play alike) they would see huge sales and rank in more profit. Thus they'd be able to give us more game for less money because they wouldn't need the money from DLC or online play or whatever.

When it comes to business model they'd have to stop building games with a focus on art and graphics and huge production values to games with addictive gameplay that are easy to learn but hard to master. Resident Evil 4 / 5 is such an example. It's basically a very simple arcade shooter with addictive gameplay. Everyone can play it (well... everyone over 18) but it is still very challenging and absolutely a "core" game.

They have to cut things like online-exclusive multiplayer because most people don't play online and focus more on local multiplayer (of course you can add both).

Catering to this way bigger market (in a serious way) still allows them to develop a certain number of games for smaller audiences while at the same time seeing increased sales because their potential market gets way bigger. In the end we are the ones to profit because they'll stop raising prices (because they don't have to) and because we are going to see a way healthier industry that has more money for new I.P.'s and experimential gameplay ideas.

The thing is that somehow we, the core gamers, got into this because of the whole "console war" thing and because we see this as some sort of competition between gamers. And of course some industry people really like to hype us for "their" idea of gaming.

I know the transition would be somewhat painful for a lot of gamers because it would feel like admitting that they've lost. But I'm sure as a long term effect this would help the industry to grow tremendously and especially help Sony and Microsoft to sell more consoles. But currently they are used by the industry to pump billions of dollars into a developing model that doesn't really work anymore. I want a healthy Sony and a helathy Microsoft but if you look at their financial statements of the past years there is no question they are currently not in a very healthy situation, especially Sony. And I don't want them to leave this business in the end just because some developers are ramming their busines models down their throat.

@ UncleScrooge

Oh, now I understand what you are getting at, and I agree almost a 100% percent. Some times I can't help but wonder what things would have been like if the PS360 hadn't been as succesful as they have, and developers had been needed to put more focus on the Wii. I'm hoping Arc and Natal will help attract some more customers to the PS360, particularly those of the expanded market.

Having said all that, I do enjoy my "core" games on my PS3. And I love pretty graphics

Company don't get money from used games directly, but they do indirectly, BTW avid early adopters are more likely to buy games if they can finance themselves selling some of their used games, OTOH people that usually buy used would buy less games if prevented from their main way to save money, and they could wait for new games prices to drop before buying them. Front loaded sales, moreover, save those games not necessarily bad, but where the hype is bigger than their actual value, should they count on smaller first weeks and longer legs, they'd risk selling less. It must also be added that used market finances new games buyers in the same way used cars do in the cars market.

I can agree, though, that business profiting on used games should pay something to SW houses. Just like used cars sales is in most countries regulated more strictly for businesses (for example they must provide warranties and assistance) buying and selling them than for private individuals, the same could be done for used games.