Also @ ZaneWane

Online passes are not the same thing. They only apply to Sony Exclusives with online multiplayer games which require servers and maintenence adding extra costs to the game after release. Though I understand that someone who buys a used game isnt adding another player neccessarily, just replacing a player who bought the game new, it is still a decent form of payment. It's hard to compete with games that don't charge for 2nd hand online, but consider those games that require online subscribtions in order to play. Those cover server costs but also serve as a form of revenue. A $10 online pass is a drop in the bucket compared to a pay for service subscribtion. Also, if the used game is available for more than a $10 discount compared to new, then the customer is still saving money. The restriction of used game playback is an entirely differnent matter.

@OP

This is good news and I felt as if PlayStation would see that such a move would be extremely anti-consumer and that the arguement against used games is somewhat flawed and insignificant when matched up to what piracy is doing to the industry. Let's hope this sentiment is throughout the entire company.

Online passes are one thing trying to block used games all together will have all kinds of unintended consequences, if MS blocks used games and Sony doesnt I dont think they will carry over the core gamers that carried them this gen and it can become more of an entertainment box that plays games not a game console that does entertainment apps. MS sees money in the Wii market and are going hard after that next gen, smart financial wise but not something I'm excited about.

Wait, Sony comes out and says "Blocking used games is bad"...and people STILL find something to bitch at them for?

Fuck you guys, seriously.

As for the comment itself, this is precisely why I like Sony. They fumble from time to time, but their general business ethic and direction is definitely better than Nintendo or Microsoft.

Aceevil it isn't that simple. It costs millions to run those gaming servers and operate PSN. EA started using Online Passes largely because EA runs its own servers on 360 and PS3, after a year or two when gamers are no longer buying the game new it starts to bleed money to maintain servers. But if EA gets 10-15$ every time a new gamer purchases the game to use EA's servers it will pay to keep the online functionality going for the full life time of the hardware and beyond.

Think of it like this. I buy a refillable Big Gulp from 711 it can be refilled indefinitely for free and I pay 100$ for it. After two months of getting a slushy every day I decide to sell the cup for 70$. A new customer that did not pay 711 a cent is now going to use the cup and get free refills, a few months later when he's sick of slush y's he sells. This goes on for three or four years and I the retailer have now paid 300+$ on refilling the cup. But wait why I am I refilling a cup of someone who never paid me for the service?

The way it is supposed to work. Guy buys the refillable slushy cup. Uses it a few months till he is sick of slush y's then every once in a while he refills it. This way he won't likely cost me the retailer more then I charged for the product and I make a profit large enough to sustain the program and to bring out future promotions.

Sony is not charging for their PSN network. Yes you can get their premium service but the main service is free. They need to make some income to rationalize maintaining this service and customers who buy used should contribute to maintaining PSN.

GameStop selling used games above 20$ and not giving anything to the publisher or developer is highly damaging to the developer. Less so for companies that Microsoft runs their servers but it is pretty costly in the long run.

Online gaming is not a product it is a service. You wouldn't expect to pay a single 100$ fee for cable for two years and then sell the service to your friend expecting the cable company to offer him the service they offered you free of charge. Unlike old games that had local multiplayer and a good offline campaign those products did not need to be maintained and no service was provided.

Sony however cannot stop used games sales. They know it the exact same way Microsoft does. Retailer retaliation would be swift and damaging. Retailers would give Sony less shelf space or possibly stop carrying their products altogether. 48% of GameStop's profits come from used sales and any move that threatens that would lead to GameStop not wanting your console tl sell. GameStop remains one of the largest gaming software and hardware retailers in North America. Even online retailers like Amazon would be pissed as they too generate profits off of used sales.

Any move against used software would need solidarity between all three manufacturers. Something that will not happen. If Microsoft and Sony both went the route of blocking used game sales but Nintendo did not. Retailers would give Nintendo 60+% of the shelf space. Retailers would take it personally upon themselves to promote WiiU as much as possible because it is their revenue!

The one problem I have with it is the hypocrisy shown here (see source link), the CEO of a company shouldn't be saying something contradictory to his company's business practices. That is the problem I have regardless of what I think about online passes and the used game debate.

But there is no hypocrisy.  Blocking used games is NOT the same as utilizing online passes. I don't LIKE online passes, but I think it's a nice balance between the two alternatives: Companies not making money or blocking used games.  while I certainly don't support online passes, it's a fair way to make money off used game sales without completely destroying the used game sales market.  Those two things are not the same, and it's kinda foolish for you to claim otherwise. 

Because this only happens to Sony right?

Fuck your personal hypocrisy, seriously.

And this is Jack Trenton's personal view, not necesarily Sony.

The online pass is an incentive to buy the game new instead of used, and whilst I think it's perfectly fair, it does hurt or 'block' the used game market. It doesn't completely destroy it, sure, but it's still harmful, which Tretton is saying he is opposed to. That sounds like Hypocrisy to me.

Edit: grammar

Sony CEO in the title is a stretch

Much as I have no problem with online passes, your entire analogy falls flat due to the fact that it doesn't matter who's using the service, as long as it's getting used.  If you buy a yearly pass on XBLA or something....then you've paid for a year, it doesn't matter if your friend comes over and uses it at your place, or if you lend your Xbox to him or whatever, the fee has been paid, that's all that should matter.  

if I buy a TV and then eventually buy a new TV, there's no reason why I Can't give my old TV to my brother.  The fee has been paid, I can do with it what I feel. 

If I buy a movie, and I get a better version of that movie or just don't want it anymore, t hen I sell it. 

The only difference is that the servers need to be maintained, which is a semi-reasonable explanation...assuming people ONLY buy the game long after its prime.  if you buy a game, get all the achievements, and decide to sell it, then the servers will have precisely the same amout of traffic whether you're using the game or Joe Blase is using it on his Xbox, there are only so many copies of the game out there, it's not like they're copying it and now TWO people are using the same copy or something.  

Later in life, when the servers are down or there are less of them, I can understand it being a choice between "Pay to keep them up" and "There are no servers", but this entire deal is a matter of greed, nothing more.  They want to bleed every penny out of good consumers because they think they can.  They want to take advantage of us becuase we deal with it.  This is precisely why I don't play online games anymore.  I don't dislike them, I just refuse to buy into this bullshit.