chapset said: steverhcp02 said: chapset said: seams like they didn't learn with resistance 3, am looking forward to see uncharted 3 sell less then the previous ones, why is it ok for me to sell my used car with all the features but somehow my games cannot be sold with all of them. Gamers are already being screwed with incomplete games that get complete later with dlcs now this. if you buy the game and you don't like it well your screwed by 10$ if you try to resell it on ebay or kijiji Terrible analogy. If you buy a used car youre paying for a car with thousands of miles. Probably dings, scratched, stains on the upholstery. Maybe the AC doesnt blow on the hardest setting. Acting like you buy  aused product and its flawless, in working order as it came off of the assembly line is stupid. Why should a used game be caught in the fabric of time and buying it used gets you the perks of buying a new product. Its second hand, it should have diminished value, and in a software not hardware sense this is the diminished value. Get used to it. It makes perfect sense if you approach it with logic rather than entitlement. humm when you a buy a used car you check it out first if something doesn't work and it bother you, you buy an other one that fit your critera here you don't have a choice it's either buy new with online or buy used and no online unless you pay us. If you buy the game and didn't like it why should the value drop by 10$ as soon as you try the online? so you get less when you sell it to someone else that might like the game. I don't get why gamers here like to be nickel and dime so much it's like you guys are begging to pay more, don't be surprise if next gen new games won't have online neither you'll need to buy it a like dlc, just like metal gear online was suppose to be

At the first bolded. Thats exactly what youre doing. If you want a car with AC you pay more than for a car without it. If you want a game with online you buy it new or used and pay $10 whicher is cheaper. You did nothing to advance your argument with the first case.

At the second bolded. A big old WTF. The same way if you buy a car and drive it off the lot it depreciates? The same reason you use ANYTHING it depreciates? Still no compelling or good point yet from your argument.

At the third bolded. Buy the game new or pay an extra $5 and buy it used and it ends up being $65. I personally dont like paying more, but im a big boy and i understand that when gamestop sells a game for $55 a week after its released and people buy it it hurts the developers and the industry because its being recycled to gamestop. So youre paying essentially $5 more for something where the people who actually made the game benefit, thus youre investing in the industry. 

 

 

jacks81x said: Jay520 said: I never said ND had to offer a trial. I just think it would be helpful for the new gamers that ND wants to obtain. It wouldn't require much effort or money from ND to implement a trial of the mp. In the end, this only helps customers & developers. Yeah, there are other ways to obtain information about the mp, but a trial version is the easiest & most accurate representation of the actual mp without giving people the mp for free. Surely, you see where I'm coming from. I see where you're coming from, but honestly I just don't think the population negatively impacted by this is that large.  I know what you're saying, but because I've never had to play a demo to convince me to buy a game, it's not something I feel strongly about.

Fair enough, I stand by what I said though...

chapset said: osamanobama said: chapset said: seams like they didn't learn with resistance 3, am looking forward to see uncharted 3 sell less then the previous ones, why is it ok for me to sell my used car with all the features but somehow my games cannot be sold with all of them. Gamers are already being screwed with incomplete games that get complete later with dlcs now this. if you buy the game and you don't like it well your screwed by 10$ if you try to resell it on ebay or kijiji so when i buy a car used, i get 12 months free of on-star, and seriousXM radio? also i get the bumber to bumber warrenty, and stuff such as that?   also, you dont complain that you cant resell and used that new opperating system you got on a disk for your computer, do you?   also you keep saying that if you buy it new and dont like it, its already worth $10 less. well we dont know that, but even if it is true and the trade in value is $10 less than a equivalent game with no online pass. theres always another side to that, lower trade in value means lower used game price, means you pay less for the used game. so really it all balances out. if you want the game and buy it new, it doesnt effect you. if you later want the game and buy it used, then it either doesnt effect you, or it cheaper. situation 1: I buy the game new 50 $ try the online it's shit so I sell it but now it's -10$ because it's used -10$ because of online pass so now it sells for 30$ instead of 40$ or I buy the game new 50$ try the online it's shit so I trade it online using kijiji but now instead of receving a game worth 40$ people will only want to trade  with games of less value unless their game got the shitty online pass too also for the used car analogy On star and free satelite radio is not as important for the purchuse of the car as the ability to play online when you buy a game used. When you buy a used car you don't loose a key component of the car like the ability to brake or be able to go faster then 15mph, imagine if you had to pay Ford or Toyota 1/5 of the price of a new car to be able to unluck the brakes or the speed limit that wouldn't make a lot of sense. Also I buy most of my games new but i still don't like this idea of nickle and diming the custumer because you make games that people don't want to hold on to.

No that wouldnt make sense because your analogy is stupid. By not being able to brake or drive over 15mph the car is unusable. Your analogies are just awful, youre compaing % cost of thousands for a broken auto to tens of dollars for an aspect of a game. I know i shouldnt but if you REALLY wanted a better analogy it would be like the radio in your car being out and having to replace it. It makes your drive a lot better, but isnt a necessity to all people or to operate the car.

Jay520 said: o_O.Q said: Jay520 said: o_O.Q said: Jay520 said: One has to wonder how effective this will be. If someone buys UC3 used and is only slightly interested in the MP, they're probably not going to pay the $10. That sucks, because they'll never know if the MP was for them or not. I don't like this "blindly pay $10, or don't play the MP at all" thing. They'll likely miss out on a lot of potential buyers that way. As a potential customer, they should be given the knowledge on what they would be paying $10 for, as opposed to just making a blind purchase.... They could have been more effective by cutting off most of the online instead of charging for online all together. I think it's fair if you offer a MP-demo for those who buy the game used. For example, they could limit online play to just a few maps/modes for those who buy it used. That way, they'll get a taste of the game and will be more inclined to pay the $10. This seems like it would be more effective IMO. I'm gonna post this idea on the psblog. used sales don't benefit the dev anyway so i don't get why they should go out of their way for people who buy used Because by offering used owners a demo or peek, the used owners would be more informed on what their ten dollars would get them. With this knowledge, the used owners are more likely to buy the online pass altogether, thus, increasing the profits for the developer. you mean like the beta that lasted for 2 1/2 weeks or the current subway promotion?... beyond that what else could people possibly need to try it out? You're assuming every future Uncharted 3 owner would have know about that stuff. It's likely that a great majority of people that pick up UC3 used will have little-to-no experience with the multiplayer for whatever reason. (maybe they didn't get a PS3 until 2012) If those people are given oppurtunity to play a limited, timed, or demo version of the mp, then I'm sure they would be more inclined to buy the online pass. More money for Sony.

i still disagree i just don't see why they should be expected to put resources towards a group of people who are only ever going to spend $10 on their game or if the person doesn't like it none at all

Jay520 said: One has to wonder how effective this will be. If someone buys UC3 used and is only slightly interested in the MP, they're probably not going to pay the $10. That sucks, because they'll never know if the MP was for them or not. I don't like this "blindly pay $10, or don't play the MP at all" thing. They'll likely miss out on a lot of potential buyers that way. As a potential customer, they should be given the knowledge on what they would be paying $10 for, as opposed to just making a blind purchase.... They could have been more effective by cutting off most of the online instead of charging for online all together. I think it's fair if you offer a MP-demo for those who buy the game used. For example, they could limit online play to just a few maps/modes for those who buy it used. That way, they'll get a taste of the game and will be more inclined to pay the $10. This seems like it would be more effective IMO. I'm gonna post this idea on the psblog.

Ummm where were you for the Uncharted 3 open beta? It started out closed to PSN + and InFamous 2 codes, then it moved to open beta. Furthermore it is stated that it is improved mp compared to Uncharted 2 (if you bothered buying it). By your logic, I should be getting a 30 min sample of a movie then before going to the theaters to watch it, or perhaps I should get massive taste tests on every item in a restaurant. You have the internet, learn to use it and look for some people you may identify with who have similar taste to you (be it reviewers or friends) and that is how you come to the conclusion of buying something. Also I would have no sympathy for someone like you who buys everything used. You obviously do not support the devs who bring you the great games so why should they give a shit about someone like you. Personally I buy most games new unless they can no longer be found new in the stores (recently killzone 1, and Godhand). It is not your obligation to buy games new, however if you expect alot from the developers when you aren't giving them shit for it, then your logic is f...king twisted. I do find it funny that people can be RETARDED (not directed at you unless you are in this category) to pay $55 +tax to gamestop for a used game when they can get it new for $60 + tax. I understand if it's the difference between a $5 used and $15 new item but the $55 to $60 is not a big jump and those people deserve to be ignored by devs.

o_O.Q said: Jay520 said: o_O.Q said: Jay520 said: o_O.Q said: Jay520 said: One has to wonder how effective this will be. If someone buys UC3 used and is only slightly interested in the MP, they're probably not going to pay the $10. That sucks, because they'll never know if the MP was for them or not. I don't like this "blindly pay $10, or don't play the MP at all" thing. They'll likely miss out on a lot of potential buyers that way. As a potential customer, they should be given the knowledge on what they would be paying $10 for, as opposed to just making a blind purchase.... They could have been more effective by cutting off most of the online instead of charging for online all together. I think it's fair if you offer a MP-demo for those who buy the game used. For example, they could limit online play to just a few maps/modes for those who buy it used. That way, they'll get a taste of the game and will be more inclined to pay the $10. This seems like it would be more effective IMO. I'm gonna post this idea on the psblog. used sales don't benefit the dev anyway so i don't get why they should go out of their way for people who buy used Because by offering used owners a demo or peek, the used owners would be more informed on what their ten dollars would get them. With this knowledge, the used owners are more likely to buy the online pass altogether, thus, increasing the profits for the developer. you mean like the beta that lasted for 2 1/2 weeks or the current subway promotion?... beyond that what else could people possibly need to try it out? You're assuming every future Uncharted 3 owner would have know about that stuff. It's likely that a great majority of people that pick up UC3 used will have little-to-no experience with the multiplayer for whatever reason. (maybe they didn't get a PS3 until 2012) If those people are given oppurtunity to play a limited, timed, or demo version of the mp, then I'm sure they would be more inclined to buy the online pass. More money for Sony. i still disagree i just don't see why they should be expected to put resources towards a group of people who are only ever going to spend $10 on their game or if the person doesn't like it none at all

I'm pretty sure something as simple as a 24 hour trial MP (or something along those lines) will take up minimum resources.

demonfox13 said: Jay520 said: One has to wonder how effective this will be. If someone buys UC3 used and is only slightly interested in the MP, they're probably not going to pay the $10. That sucks, because they'll never know if the MP was for them or not. I don't like this "blindly pay $10, or don't play the MP at all" thing. They'll likely miss out on a lot of potential buyers that way. As a potential customer, they should be given the knowledge on what they would be paying $10 for, as opposed to just making a blind purchase.... They could have been more effective by cutting off most of the online instead of charging for online all together. I think it's fair if you offer a MP-demo for those who buy the game used. For example, they could limit online play to just a few maps/modes for those who buy it used. That way, they'll get a taste of the game and will be more inclined to pay the $10. This seems like it would be more effective IMO. I'm gonna post this idea on the psblog. Ummm where were you for the Uncharted 3 open beta? It started out closed to PSN + and InFamous 2 codes, then it moved to open beta. Furthermore it is stated that it is improved mp compared to Uncharted 2 (if you bothered buying it). By your logic, I should be getting a 30 min sample of a movie then before going to the theaters to watch it, or perhaps I should get massive taste tests on every item in a restaurant. You have the internet, learn to use it and look for some people you may identify with who have similar taste to you (be it reviewers or friends) and that is how you come to the conclusion of buying something. Also I would have no sympathy for someone like you who buys everything used. You obviously do not support the devs who bring you the great games so why should they give a shit about someone like you. Personally I buy most games new unless they can no longer be found new in the stores (recently killzone 1, and Godhand). It is not your obligation to buy games new, however if you expect alot from the developers when you aren't giving them shit for it, then your logic is f...king twisted. I do find it funny that people can be RETARDED (not directed at you unless you are in this category) to pay $55 +tax to gamestop for a used game when they can get it new for $60 + tax. I understand if it's the difference between a $5 used and $15 new item but the $55 to $60 is not a big jump and those people deserve to be ignored by devs.

Read the entire thread before making those ridiculous assumptions...

Jay520 said: o_O.Q said: Jay520 said: o_O.Q said: Jay520 said: o_O.Q said: Jay520 said: One has to wonder how effective this will be. If someone buys UC3 used and is only slightly interested in the MP, they're probably not going to pay the $10. That sucks, because they'll never know if the MP was for them or not. I don't like this "blindly pay $10, or don't play the MP at all" thing. They'll likely miss out on a lot of potential buyers that way. As a potential customer, they should be given the knowledge on what they would be paying $10 for, as opposed to just making a blind purchase.... They could have been more effective by cutting off most of the online instead of charging for online all together. I think it's fair if you offer a MP-demo for those who buy the game used. For example, they could limit online play to just a few maps/modes for those who buy it used. That way, they'll get a taste of the game and will be more inclined to pay the $10. This seems like it would be more effective IMO. I'm gonna post this idea on the psblog. used sales don't benefit the dev anyway so i don't get why they should go out of their way for people who buy used Because by offering used owners a demo or peek, the used owners would be more informed on what their ten dollars would get them. With this knowledge, the used owners are more likely to buy the online pass altogether, thus, increasing the profits for the developer. you mean like the beta that lasted for 2 1/2 weeks or the current subway promotion?... beyond that what else could people possibly need to try it out? You're assuming every future Uncharted 3 owner would have know about that stuff. It's likely that a great majority of people that pick up UC3 used will have little-to-no experience with the multiplayer for whatever reason. (maybe they didn't get a PS3 until 2012) If those people are given oppurtunity to play a limited, timed, or demo version of the mp, then I'm sure they would be more inclined to buy the online pass. More money for Sony. i still disagree i just don't see why they should be expected to put resources towards a group of people who are only ever going to spend $10 on their game or if the person doesn't like it none at all I'm pretty sure something as simple as a 24 hour trial MP (or something along those lines) will take up minimum resources.

i still stand by what i said if you can't be bothered supporting devs with more than a 1/6th of the intended price of their games why should they give a crap about you? but thats my opinion

Jay520 said: demonfox13 said: Jay520 said: One has to wonder how effective this will be. If someone buys UC3 used and is only slightly interested in the MP, they're probably not going to pay the $10. That sucks, because they'll never know if the MP was for them or not. I don't like this "blindly pay $10, or don't play the MP at all" thing. They'll likely miss out on a lot of potential buyers that way. As a potential customer, they should be given the knowledge on what they would be paying $10 for, as opposed to just making a blind purchase.... They could have been more effective by cutting off most of the online instead of charging for online all together. I think it's fair if you offer a MP-demo for those who buy the game used. For example, they could limit online play to just a few maps/modes for those who buy it used. That way, they'll get a taste of the game and will be more inclined to pay the $10. This seems like it would be more effective IMO. I'm gonna post this idea on the psblog. Ummm where were you for the Uncharted 3 open beta? It started out closed to PSN + and InFamous 2 codes, then it moved to open beta. Furthermore it is stated that it is improved mp compared to Uncharted 2 (if you bothered buying it). By your logic, I should be getting a 30 min sample of a movie then before going to the theaters to watch it, or perhaps I should get massive taste tests on every item in a restaurant. You have the internet, learn to use it and look for some people you may identify with who have similar taste to you (be it reviewers or friends) and that is how you come to the conclusion of buying something. Also I would have no sympathy for someone like you who buys everything used. You obviously do not support the devs who bring you the great games so why should they give a shit about someone like you. Personally I buy most games new unless they can no longer be found new in the stores (recently killzone 1, and Godhand). It is not your obligation to buy games new, however if you expect alot from the developers when you aren't giving them shit for it, then your logic is f...king twisted. I do find it funny that people can be RETARDED (not directed at you unless you are in this category) to pay $55 +tax to gamestop for a used game when they can get it new for $60 + tax. I understand if it's the difference between a $5 used and $15 new item but the $55 to $60 is not a big jump and those people deserve to be ignored by devs. Read the entire thread before making those ridiculous assumptions...

I did and your points and logic all absolutely fail. You should be thankful for the age of the internet because what did people do back in the 80's and early 90's? Word of mouth and brand recognition...that was it! You have absolutely NO excuse to wait a week or 2 to buy a game used and then to even try and remotely think about bitching or complaining nor come in here with the assumption of you being the voice of those poor souls who have no clue of the Uncharted 3 multiplayer. A vast majority of the population has the tendency to see a movie or show from the first part or season 1 (star wars is the exception), and therefore for cheap they can buy Uncharted 1 and 2 (hell even used since they are fairly older games) and have a general idea of what to expect out of the multiplayer of 3. Also you have the internet and RL for reviews, recommendations and word of mouth. Tell me, what did you do when you took the leap to purchase your system? I would hope you did A: researched online and offline, through various recommendations and/or opinions of people on said product; or B: had prior knowledge given the history of each respective console. Wii sold well for various reasons 1. motion controls used as a gimmick for the blue ocean 2. was a console made by a world renowned console manufacturer (well known brand name), 3. very affordable price point at entry. Uncharted 1 was a full priced game with no multiplayer, yet had an excellent single player experience to warrant the pricepoint. Uncharted 2 was a hyped game which helped give 1 more sales and improved upon the single player formula, and they also added the multiplayer as more value for money. Uncharted 3 has shown through previews that it has improved in visuals, and based on various reviewers the multiplayer seems very solid. Coming from a company that has a very good history since the PS2 it would be a safer bet for the consumers compared to say Quantic Dream which has Farenheit/Indigo Prophecy and Heavy Rain. Finally it also becomes the job of marketing to show you what their products have to offer. Why did I try Gears of War 1 and helped fund it even though I do not own a 360? Because the marketing behind it appealed to me (commercial with Marcus Fenix and Mad World playing in the background), the word of mouth was very positive, and the reviewers praised it. I honestly do not know if I conveyed the proper message here but I hope someone understands even if it's not you lol.

This is a horrible idea and anyone who supports this is clearly blinded. Whats this you have two psn accounts, you have more then one kid, your friend wants to play the game, well too bad $10 for all of them. Want to sell the game well too bad, thats now $10 you get less for the game. Next gen you want to go back andplay old games, well the only place to find these games is used well too bad $10 more to play online.

It starts with the multiplayer and just you wait until they bring it out for singleplayer. Want to go back and play all those classic games well $10 for each of them.