Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wretched Ride: PS4 Driveclub Game Rental Tied To Paid Subscription

timothy posted about 3 months ago | from the utility-company's-involved-too dept.

Sony 93

MojoKid (1002251) writes "The upcoming PS4 game Driveclub is making waves for reasons that have nothing to do with its gameplay or development status. In a new video, the company has spelled out its free trial and upgrade policies, and the requirements are a doozy. First, the good news — PlayStation Plus subscribers will be able to download a demo of the game that contains a few maps and one trial area, India. If you choose to upgrade that version, the full title will cost you $50. Here's the catch — that purchase is tied to your Playstation Plus subscription. In other words, if you stop paying Sony the official $49.95 a year for PlayStation Plus, you lose your $50 game. This is completely at odds with how PlayStation Plus membership is supposed to work. It contradicts Sony's official FAQ, which states that: 'Any content you purchase with a Plus discount is yours to keep, regardless of you membership status.'"

cancel ×

93 comments

Yours to keep (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46952403)

...but apparently not to play.

Re:Yours to keep (2)

Richy_T (111409) | about 3 months ago | (#46953859)

Insert Obama paraphrased quote here.

Re:Yours to keep (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46959787)

MojoKid fails at basic reading comprehension. Unless there's a version you can buy without Plus that costs more than the comparative offer on Plus, there is no discount involved and thus the FAQ is not contradicted at all.

Issues with always-online games? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46952417)

This seems to be an unintended consequence of having an online-only game relying on service that is provided for a monthly fee. This wouldn't be an issue with the PS3 as online game play wasn't restricted to Plus subscriptions. I would have thought that people would have learned by now from the failures of EA/SimCity.

MSRP of subscription MMOs (0)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#46952579)

Did EverQuest, World of Warcraft, or any other subscription MMORPG cost money to "buy" at launch?

Re:MSRP of subscription MMOs (2)

flitty (981864) | about 3 months ago | (#46952743)

Nearly all MMO's have required a purchase of $60 with a free month included. Newer "Free-to-play" MMO's are usually offered for free to download, but have very heavy restrictions on what you can do, much like this Driveclub thing.

Re:MSRP of subscription MMOs (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 3 months ago | (#46953071)

Yeah, you "buy" the game, but "rent" the servers everyone else connects to. Connecting to unofficial MMORPG servers is (or should be) legal for the client, but probably illegal for the person running the server. The client owns the game. But not the servers that you connect to. But disabling a "owned" game with local play (like Diablo III) is bad form.

Re:MSRP of subscription MMOs (1)

SydShamino (547793) | about 3 months ago | (#46953499)

Black-box reimplementations of the servers shouldn't be illegal, any more than reverse engineering any other protocol would be. Connecting to one might violate a click-through contract you "signed" once, and get your account banned from the official servers, sure, but it should never violate the law.

Re:MSRP of subscription MMOs (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 3 months ago | (#46956053)

Black-box reimplementations of the servers shouldn't be illegal

And yet they are, unfortunately. See Blizzard v. bnetd [eff.org] .

Re:MSRP of subscription MMOs (3, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#46953175)

Did EverQuest, World of Warcraft, or any other subscription MMORPG cost money to "buy" at launch?

All of them. It's very rare that a non-freemium MMO doesn't have a purchase price.

I do not think they are even remotely comparable to this though. For that monthly fee, you're getting something. There's in-game support, constant development of new areas, improved rules, GM events, etc... You're paying to keep the online servers up, and the development to continue. MMO's are an entirely different animal than other games.

I'd compare it to buying a bowling ball. If you buy a basket ball, you know you can use it where-ever, even setup your own hoop. Buy a bowling ball and you're totally aware that to play that game it's going to cost you $20 every time. It's part of the deal and you understand it. But what this developer is doing is akin to selling you a basketball with a coin slot on the side. You have to put coins in, but you get nothing in return. It's just a money grab.

Re:MSRP of subscription MMOs (1)

Custard Horse (1527495) | about 3 months ago | (#46957691)

Buy a bowling ball and you're totally aware that to play that game it's going to cost you $20 every time. It's part of the deal and you understand it. But what this developer is doing is akin to selling you a basketball with a coin slot on the side. You have to put coins in, but you get nothing in return. It's just a money grab.

Well you say that but it is possible to set up your own bowling alley and some (rich) people do have their own home alleys. However, if you decide not to pay for your PSP subscription there is *no way* to set up your own server as Sony is unlikely/disinclined to allow you to do so.

Of course this issue is already in existence with games like Titanfall on the Xbox One which is online only although with that game the requirement for an internet connection and monthly subscription is patently obvious.

IMHO I am pleased that Sony has returned to its old ways as the recent Microsoft-only bashing has got a bit 'old'.

Re:MSRP of subscription MMOs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46953821)

yes.

Re:Issues with always-online games? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46952683)

It shouldn't be related at all. You can purchase a digital copy of the game separate from the upgrade, which costs $60, and is yours to keep regardless of Plus Membership. There's no good excuse for this.

Re:Issues with always-online games? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46953081)

Gamers are suckers. It's in their nature. Should they have to suck a cock to play their games they would do it.
They're junkies and the game companies know it. That's why so much shit rains over them all the time and they're happy about it. It's simply a lost cause to let know they're being fucked front and back.

Re:Issues with always-online games? (2)

SydShamino (547793) | about 3 months ago | (#46953483)

I would have thought that people would have learned by now from the failures of Sony.

Fixed, but sadly, still broken.

Re:Issues with always-online games? (0)

Narishma (822073) | about 3 months ago | (#46953521)

There are plenty of PS4 games that are online-only but don't require PS+.

It's the loophole (4, Interesting)

cdrudge (68377) | about 3 months ago | (#46952451)

Any content you purchase with a Plus discount is yours to keep, regardless of you membership status.

Official response: Well you didn't purchase it, you licensed it.

Silly consumers...

Re:It's the loophole (5, Funny)

mlts (1038732) | about 3 months ago | (#46952503)

Translation: " I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

Re:It's the loophole (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46955259)

Go suck a dick you fucking faggot. You and your faggot Star Wars sucks the shit out of the assholes of a thousand faggots. Fucking lowlife bitch cunt asshole.

Re:It's the loophole (1, Redundant)

Minwee (522556) | about 3 months ago | (#46952661)

"You get to keep it. We never said you could play it."

change (4, Funny)

dlt074 (548126) | about 3 months ago | (#46952707)

if you like your video game, you can keep your video game.

Re:It's the loophole (3, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 3 months ago | (#46952801)

If we license the content, why are replacement discs the same price?

Re:It's the loophole (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#46953187)

Because you're also licensing your own money. Pick which one you want to keep.

Re:It's the loophole (0)

Kurast (1662819) | about 3 months ago | (#46952951)

"If you like your game, you can keep it".

Re:It's the loophole (4, Interesting)

_xeno_ (155264) | about 3 months ago | (#46953633)

I don't think that's the loophole, actually. Since technically as far as Sony cares you license everything, the physical disc just gives you a "license" to use the software on it.

No, the distinction is that the "unlock" is "DLC" and the full version is a "game."

One of the "perks" of a PSPlus subscription (in fact, the only perk prior to the PS4) was that you'd get discounts on the PlayStation Store and that sometimes you could get free games. If you got a "free" game through PSPlus, you only could use it while you have an active PSPlus subscription.

Well, guess what? The demo version of this game is, in fact, a "free" PSPlus game. It's only available to PSPlus subscribers. So as soon as you drop your PSPlus subscription, you lose access to the demo.

And the "full unlock" is DLC to said "free game," so if you drop your PSPlus subscription, you lose access to the entire game as you can no longer play the "base" game (the "demo").

This whole thing strikes me more as laziness than out-right maliciousness. Someone realized it screwed people over, and then rather than try and fix it by making an exception, Sony said "fuck it" and reverts to screwing customers over, in typical Sony fashion.

Still malicious (they could fix it, after all), but with a nice helping of being too lazy to fix a problem they clearly recognize exists.

Re:It's the loophole (1)

CronoCloud (590650) | about 3 months ago | (#46956291)

The demo version of this game is, in fact, a "free" PSPlus game. It's only available to PSPlus subscribers. So as soon as you drop your PSPlus subscription, you lose access to the demo.

And the "full unlock" is DLC to said "free game," so if you drop your PSPlus subscription, you lose access to the entire game as you can no longer play the "base" game (the "demo").

This whole thing strikes me more as laziness than out-right maliciousness.

Yeah laziness, and Sony thinking that people are going to need PS+ to play DriveClub online anyway and thusly wouldn't be worried about losing access and thus getting the game 10 bucks cheaper.

I have some of those PS+ freebies and if someone asked me "What happens when your PS+ subscription ends?"

My answer would be: "I'm not planning on it ending, I pay by the year."

I figure they'll either fix this, maybe by making the "base game" accessible to everyone not just PS+ subscribers, or start charging a fee for the "base game".

Re:It's the loophole (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46959073)

I have some of those PS+ freebies and if someone asked me "What happens when your PS+ subscription ends?"

My answer would be: "I'm not planning on it ending, I pay by the year."

I don't plan on mine ending either, doesn't mean it won't. Maybe Sony cuts off the PS3 at some point. Maybe Sony goes under. Regardless, there are reasons it would end that have nothing to do with your ability to pay.

You want to know what I'd say? "Oh well. I didn't get PS+ for the 'free' games, so no real loss there."

Re:It's the loophole (1)

Xest (935314) | about 3 months ago | (#46957143)

Yep, this is the difference between XBox Live and PlaystationPlus.

Basically, both offer users free games, Sony tends to offer about 12 months worth releasing one a month IIRC (been a while since I looked at my PS3) so you have a nice set of choice to download at any one time and you have a year to grab them. You can keep playing them as long as you keep paying for PSPlus.

In contrast, Xbox Live's Games with Gold program only has one free game at a time, it releases 2 a month changing game half way through the month. That means you only get about 15 days to a grab a game that's free, and if you miss it you miss out altogether on it. But the benefit is that although the window is much shorter (15 days vs. a whole year on PSPlus) you actually do get to keep it for good once you have downloaded it even if you ditch your gold subscription.

There are pros and cons to both approaches. Sony gives you a bigger library available at any one time, but forces you to keep subscribing. Microsoft give you a tiny library at any one time but whatever is in it is yours to keep forever once you download it.

Re:It's the loophole (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46955551)

Any content you purchase with a Plus discount is yours to keep, regardless of you membership status.

Official response: Well you didn't purchase it, you licensed it.

Silly consumers...

People actually believe anything Sony says?

Re:It's the loophole (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 3 months ago | (#46956621)

Always carefully read the contact "yours to keep", they did not say you would be able to use it. So allow your membership to lapse and you can't use it, renew your membership and maybe you might be able to use it again. In other countries where fit for purpose laws exist, it should result in a smack down ie the game is no longer fit for purpose, in the US of course without fit for purpose consumer laws this just means sucked in.

Blatant Cashgrab (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46952473)

This really doesn't surprise me, especially since that time a few years ago when Activision were talking about pushing a required monthly subscription to play Call of Duty online. Not surprisingly, after massive user backlash, they merely pushed a subscription service that was required for the game's DLC. That other developers would try to cash in on this is not surprising in the least.

Hey remember that E3 promo? (2)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 3 months ago | (#46952481)

You know, the one that made fun of MS for trying to pull shit like this.

Re:Hey remember that E3 promo? (1)

AdamThor (995520) | about 3 months ago | (#46952887)

Oh, uh, you weren't actually expecting anyone to actually back away from a model like this, were you?

Not FAQ Contradicting (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46952521)

Actually, this is 100% in line with the FAQ. The PS+ version of the game isn't a demo. It's a low-content version of the game with a full trophy set. The $50 is DLC to add the missing cars, countries, and tracks to the PS+ version. The $60 version is a release which contains all of the above. You still own the $50 DLC. You just don't have access to the base game to be able to utilize that DLC. It's the same as any number of other games released on PS+. For example, LittleBigPlanet 2 has the Cross-Controller Pack, which provides you the ability to use a Playstation Vita as a second screen and a controller for the game that has unique play functionality. The pack also includes exclusive content (costumes, items, etc). If you let your PS+ subscription lapse, you can no longer play LittleBigPlanet 2, but you do still own the Cross-Controller Pack. You can no longer DO anything with that pack, but you do still very much own it, and regain access to its functionality if you resubscribe at some point.

Think about it this way. If you bought Diablo 2 and the Lord of Destruction expansion, and later sold Diablo 2, you would no longer be able to utilize the content of Lord of Destruction. It's the same thing, people.

Re:Not FAQ Contradicting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46952641)

"Think about it this way. If you bought Diablo 2 and the Lord of Destruction expansion, and later sold Diablo 2, you would no longer be able to utilize the content of Lord of Destruction. It's the same thing, people."

Very inaccurate example.

Let's put it this way....

You get AOL, you connect to AOL and buy a game on STEAM. That game only works while you are on AOL...

Re:Not FAQ Contradicting (1)

robbyb20 (651479) | about 3 months ago | (#46953463)

OR, how about you bought a computer, paid for AOL that allowed you access to games and bought a game tied to AOL. Canceled AOL and still think you should have access to said game.

Also, you still need steam to authenticate once in awhile, it just so happens that steam isnt a paid for membership.

Re:Not FAQ Contradicting (1)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 3 months ago | (#46953637)

>Also, you still need steam to authenticate once in awhile, it just so happens that steam isn't a paid for membership.

Not being a paid membership is a huge difference. Many of us would not use Steam if we had to pay a monthly fee to access our games.

Re:Not FAQ Contradicting (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 3 months ago | (#46958745)

for the most part you only need to authenticate once, you can play offline and never connect to steam again

Re:Not FAQ Contradicting (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 3 months ago | (#46952831)

You're explaining a loophole. I wouldn't say it's not a contradiction. It goes against the idea Sony had in mind.

Re:Not FAQ Contradicting (2)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 3 months ago | (#46952923)

Sony said something. How customers interpreted it and what Sony had in mind need not be the same thing (and often aren't).

Re:Not FAQ Contradicting (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 3 months ago | (#46953173)

Won't matter if Sony closes the loophole.

Re:Not FAQ Contradicting (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 3 months ago | (#46953455)

Where's my +1 Funny mod?

Re:Not FAQ Contradicting (1)

SydShamino (547793) | about 3 months ago | (#46953543)

Sony could close the loop hole by letting customers keep access to any PlayStation Plus games for which they had bought additional downloadable content, even if they cancel their PS Plus subscription. Or maybe have some threshold of DLC like $10 or $20 to enable keeping the game.

Re:Not FAQ Contradicting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46952895)

No, your examples are all poor, actually, and it's not the same thing. If you sell Diablo 2, you're selling a key to install Diablo 2, neither of which is required once you install Lord of Destruction (as LoD takes over all launch, play and online tasks). If you wanted to install it AGAIN, well, you sold your key, so it's a toss-up as to whether or not you still have access to it.

More to the point, that's a one time purchase. This is DLC tied to a PS+ glorified "demo" that you lose access to, which is unprecedented because PS+ titles GENERALLY have two states: One, free. You can buy DLC for free titles, but once you stop subscribing and lose the title, that's all you have. In that way it's similar, but *you never paid for that title*. That's the key. The other state is discount, where you're paying for it, and you own it, even after you stop subscribing to PS+.

To charge full game price for a game and then continue requiring a PS+ subscription in the future to access it is, for lack of a better word, asinine. It hasn't happened before because it's a terrible idea, and if that's the future of PS+, I think you're going to see a lot less subscriptions in the future. A policy like that running prevalent on the XBL platform would have sunk the Xbone before it even had a chance to stop being overpriced and mediocre.

Re:Not FAQ Contradicting (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 3 months ago | (#46953361)

If you sell D2 and keep LoD you're selling your license key to install and play Diablo 2 not just install it. So if you want to sell your D2 key then you better uninstall D2. I have a feeling reinstalling LoD and running it would be very very difficult.

Re:Not FAQ Contradicting (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 3 months ago | (#46957607)

$50 seems like a lot for DLC. I don't have a modern console so I'm really asking if it is reasonable. $50 for an add-on that is reliant on a subscription to have any value seems excessive.

Market Opportunity (3, Insightful)

Akratist (1080775) | about 3 months ago | (#46952597)

Someone needs to really cash in on the idea of games which a) don't require you to buy a bunch of in-app purchases to actually beat the game, b) are yours to keep after you've paid the publisher/retailer some money, and c) don't make you feel like you just got raped after buying it. In other words, turn the clock back to the 90s before all the money grubbing got completely out of hand.

Re:Market Opportunity (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46953155)

Buy a Wii.

Re:Market Opportunity (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#46953207)

They try, and then these companies buy them with all the hordes of cash they are making off schemes like this. This is happening precisely because people fall for it, and they make lots and lots of money.

Re:Market Opportunity (2)

bws111 (1216812) | about 3 months ago | (#46953403)

Ha-ha! Good one! You are saying if you were to develop a game as described, some big mean company could just buy you out without your consent?

The companies get bought because they are grubbing for money just like everyone else.

Re:Market Opportunity (1)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 3 months ago | (#46953661)

You've just described most real games, as opposed to smart-phone crap. What does the 90s have to do with it? If the "got raped" comment means you're cheap, buy games from Steam sales.

Re:Market Opportunity (1)

praxis (19962) | about 3 months ago | (#46953969)

There are many such games. I played one last night, it's called Faster Than Light. I played another one last week, it's called Baldur's Gate. I played another one last month, it's called The Banner Saga. In fact, I play games often, and I have not purchased anything that didn't make sense to purchase and I have yet to run out of quality games to play in my lifetime. My backlog is so long I'll never finish it. Vote with your wallet, there are tons of good choices out there.

Re:Market Opportunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46954873)

Hmmm... Baldurs Gate... released in... THE NINETIES - I think you just proved their point...

Re:Market Opportunity (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 3 months ago | (#46955993)

Hmmm... Baldurs Gate... released in... THE NINETIES - I think you just proved their point...

John Lennon's "Imagine" came out in 1971, and it's still selling like hotcakes. What was the point again?

Re:Market Opportunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46956429)

There's a lot of good old choices and good indie choices. Sometimes I crave big big games. It's like wanting to go to a theater to see a summer blockbuster action flick as opposed to a brilliant, thought-provoking indie film at a community theater. Obviously these big blockbuster games come with a lot of hassle and conditions now. I just finished Stanley Parable (at least I think I did... do we ever really know?) as well as Kentucky Route Zero, Papers Please, and Dear Esther. All gave me beautiful gaming experiences. I'm decidedly a console gamer, but the current state of consoles and my own burnout over the usual AAA fare, coupled with my concerns over the next gen ecosystem have me going back to old games and small studios. It's a great time to be gaming because of the choice we have, but I'll still long for the big AAA games.

So what's the news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46952607)

World of Warcraft. EVE Online. Elder Scroll Online...

PS+ and DLC (3, Informative)

robmv (855035) | about 3 months ago | (#46952613)

This is standard on PS+, if you get a "free" game via PS+ (all games received for "free" are tied to your subscription, PS+ discounted ones aren't) and you buy DLC for it, the DLC becomes unusable if you end your PS+ subscription. Sony tells you that when you hit the download button for one of those "free" games. You can buy the base game later if you don't want to continue paying for the PS+ subscription, and then your DLC will be usable on that game. I am a PS+ subscriber, I avoid to buy DLC for the "free" games for this reason, but everything is perfectly clear on the store when you buy.

Re:PS+ and DLC (1)

adolf (21054) | about 3 months ago | (#46952723)

That actually looks like a very fair way of doing things.

But, according to TFS, this isn't about DLCs as they're commonly. The "base game" is a PS+ entity ("demo"), and apparently cannot be purchased separately or used without a paid-up PS+ account.

Re:PS+ and DLC (1)

robmv (855035) | about 3 months ago | (#46952829)

Interesting, then they only need to sell the base game for like 10$ and problem solved. Let's see if this is fixed, It is somewhat torelable to ignore a small 5$ DLC, but not a 50$ one if you close your PS+ subscription

Re:PS+ and DLC (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 3 months ago | (#46953393)

The issue sounds more like the base game is being loaded under demos, thus costs nothing, rather than under the store where you purchase items. Unfortuntaely, demos are tied to PS+ accounts. The answer seems more like that if instead of a free demo you should list the item for sale at $0.

Re:PS+ and DLC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46952853)

isn't this the definition of Tying therefore violating Anti Trust laws?

Re:PS+ and DLC (1)

adolf (21054) | about 3 months ago | (#46953197)

isn't this the definition of Tying therefore violating Anti Trust laws?

IANAL, but perhaps one of the resident ones here would be kind enough to post a clue.

Re:PS+ and DLC (1)

bws111 (1216812) | about 3 months ago | (#46953333)

No. First, to run afoul of anti-trust laws you first need to be a trust, which Sony isn't. Second, tying has nothing to do with co-reqs or pre-reqs. If it did, then every game Sony sells would be claimed to be 'tied' to purchase of a PS. Third, tying is requiring purchase of an unrelated thing in order to get the desired thing, for anti-competitive reasons. For example, if Sony had a monopoly (they don't) and the only way you could get a game was if you also bought 'the official game guide', that could be seen as tying, because the purpose of it is to get people to buy a Sony game guide so they don't buy someone else's. None of that applies here.

Re:PS+ and DLC (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about 3 months ago | (#46953653)

you don't need to be a trust to break "anti-trust" laws. The laws are not actually worded as "anti trust". That is just the common effect they have. You have the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commision Act. For example here is the sherman act

"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.

See the or otherwise part.

Re:PS+ and DLC (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about 3 months ago | (#46953617)

The sell a disc version. They also sell a full priced downloadable version. People are voluntarilly buying the game this way to save $10. Not really big anti trust issue.

Re:PS+ and DLC (3, Informative)

robmv (855035) | about 3 months ago | (#46958099)

Looks like they fixed the offer [playstation.com]

UPDATE: Our priority for DRIVECLUB is to enable you to play and enjoy everything it has to offer and PlayStation recognises that the prior plan for DRIVECLUB entitlement for the upgrade to the PS Plus edition was not appropriate. As a result, we have adjusted the PlayStation Plus terms for DRIVECLUB.

Now, If you intend on downloading DRIVECLUB PlayStation Plus Edition, and upgrading to the full game experience, you will have access to the full game even if your PlayStation Plus subscription runs out.

Why need PS+ anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46952819)

I'm going to skip this console generation : PS+ requirement to play online is ridiculous : I skipped all Xbox just because of their "Gold" membership and will start skipping Sony stuff too... I hope many will do the same thing!

It's Sony. (1, Insightful)

6Yankee (597075) | about 3 months ago | (#46952633)

Why are you surprised?

There's a simple solution (3, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 months ago | (#46952645)

You try to bullshit me with your contract, I'm not entering it. Keep your game, I keep my money, let's see who can rather afford it.

Re:There's a simple solution (1)

genner (694963) | about 3 months ago | (#46953593)

You try to bullshit me with your contract, I'm not entering it. Keep your game, I keep my money, let's see who can rather afford it.

I normally take this attitude but Sony is breaking laws here. There needs to be a lawsuit at the very least.

Save, before shopping (-1, Offtopic)

CouponDam.com (3646559) | about 3 months ago | (#46952751)

Get more coupons, deals, offers, free shipping and much more at http://www.coupondam.com/ [coupondam.com]

Gamers need to stop this (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 3 months ago | (#46952757)

Sony's not doing this to us. We're doing it to ourselves. Stop accepting DRM. Don't subscribe to PS Plus. Don't "buy" this game. Goes for Steam, too.

Re:Gamers need to stop this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46952905)

The problem is that there will ALWAYS be uninformed people out there buying these games. Let me give you a great example of this.

A few months ago, on Steam, a game called "Castle Miner Z" got approved for purchase on Steam through Greenlight. The game was initially on the Xbox Live Indie Marketplace - essentially a giant dustbin of games made by amateur developers, 99.9% of which wouldn't even be good enough to make alpha status in an actual development studio. Castle Miner Z was the epitome of these, a cheap Minecraft clone with guns. There is very little crafting and exactly one enemy type. They released it on XBIM for $1.00.. but on Steam Greenlight, it was initially released at something like $7.50. No changes were made to the game, it was still the same unplayable crap, but they were charging 700%+ more for it.

Another case of this happened last week, when a game called "Level 22" got released, again via Greenlight. The game was initially a $0.99 Android/IOS game that the developers lazily ported to PC, changing absolutely nothing from the mobile versions. The price on Steam was over $5 at launch.

This happens with almost every single game uploaded to Greenlight, and yet people keep buying them and making it just profitable enough to pay the $100 Greenlight fee (plus the small amount of money I'm sure these people pay to get a botnet to vote their games up) and still make money.

It's not even that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46956077)

It's almost like stockholm syndrome. The majority of gamers are sympathizing with their 'captors.'

I've had a couple long arguements about this stuff years ago when stuff heavier than 'cd-key' or even securom starting coming into play. The excuse I got from gamers was: 'Well if they didn't do that, we'd just pirate their games, like we usually do,'

X.x The irony of this to me was that they said this as they were pirating games, but ALSO as they were purchasing games they 'liked' regardless of the DRM, and formerly had been purchasing games during the shareware era based on the games/demos available. In fact the majority who'd 'pirated' games had done so by installing games without cd-keys or secu-rom type checks and simply running a nocd executable (which even today are almost always available 0-day.)

But despite all this you hear gamers talk about DRM in the same way 'pink 'n prissys' talk about Disney Films/World/etc or any number of other cult/fanboy companies. It's a necessary evil and we still love them just the same.

The only possible way I can see this problem being remedied is for all the people who actually care about these issues segregating themselves into a sovereign state where such things won't be tolerated, because quite frankly the breeding and nose breathing masses are not going to change their opinions rapidly enough to stem the tide.

Re:Gamers need to stop this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46964419)

This issue aside, PlayStation Plus is a pretty great service. Better than Netflix in terms of value to content ratio.

Sony is crapping the bed (2, Informative)

Sandman1971 (516283) | about 3 months ago | (#46952761)

Sony is really crapping the bed with the PS4. Very few games compared to XBox One, more exclusives going to XB1, dropping free multiplayer in PSN+, and now things like this. All things that PS fanboys used to make fun of in regards to Xbox. It's like they took most of what was great at the PS3 and did a full 180. Whereas I'm finding the XB1 to be a fabulous platform.

(Disclaimer: I own both a PS4 and Xbox One and I'm not a 'fanboy' of either companies. Just calling it like it is)

Re:Sony is crapping the bed (1)

turp182 (1020263) | about 3 months ago | (#46952837)

Interesting use of the phrase "crapping the bed". Obviously "crapping the bed" isn't a phrase one should use often, that would only serve to dilute its effectiveness.

Very similar to "dropping the ball", except picking the ball back up is far easier than washing one's self and the bed sheets...

Re:Sony is crapping the bed (4, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about 3 months ago | (#46952875)

Honestly, I think both are crapping in the bed, and refuse to buy either. The exclusives are largely just uncreative re-hashes.

  Meanwhile, IMO, the PC is going through a bit of a gaming golden age right now.

is there a disc version of the game? (1)

alen (225700) | about 3 months ago | (#46952861)

just buy that and you should be OK

God forbid some of you should leave your homes once a month and melt in the sunshine. or have to wait a whole extra day if you buy the game from amazon

If anyone is upset... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46952911)

If anyone is upset that they bought a PlayStation and now features are being changed after-the-fact, I have NO SYMPATHY for you.

Enjoy :)

They don't learn (2)

Daniel Hoffmann (2902427) | about 3 months ago | (#46953117)

People fled gaming-PCs because of all the bullshit: obtuse DRM, all the half-done buggy games that need to be patched to be playable, the annoying installations and so on.

Consoles now have way more bullshit than the old-school PC gaming ever had and this is why people will start to leave consoles for another platform (probably steam.)

Re:They don't learn (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46953567)

Just my humble opinion. People fled PC Gaming because of botched, half-baked DRM schemes that only treated paying customers as criminals. When it became far more cumbersome to install a legitamately owned copy of the game than it was to simply pirate and play, consumers turned to the easier methods to play their desired games. I think this is part of what made XBox Live so popular, here was an unobstructive means to play games with friends (or enemies across the globe) that did not require an individual jump through hoops and call customer support to prove they legally acquired the game they were trying to play. PSN started similarly, although a bit rockier. It wasn't quite as easy to use, but in the end still allowed for playing with friends, for free.

Fast forward to today, where MS is considering the XB1 more of an entertainment console than a video game console. It sounds like PSN is more focused on games, but is more limited than previous incarnations. Both of them are now in pursuit of the allmighty dollar, leaving the consumer free to purchase 60% of a completed game on a disk, then cough up more money for the remaining 40% (and give a significant portion of that to MS or Sony). Xbox Live lost me when they started advertising applications for XBLive Gold, then those applications wanted a monthly fee on top of it. I, for one, don't like anime enough to justify spending another $8 a month for some channel I can only view as long as I keep my XBL in gold status. PSN lost me as soon as they offered those "free" games (as long as you paid for PSN+), when initially the part in parens wasn't made abundantly clear. It's all one big money grab that people are eating up. I'm a huge fan of the first Killer Instinct games and was really looking forward to the next incarnation, then I read the business model is "1 character free, $5 for each additional", and immediately did an about face.

Now look back at the PC. Yes there is still DRM in the form of (the late) GFWL, Origin, and Steam. There are other schemes, but those are the most prevalant from what I can tell. GFWL was an abomination that barely worked for me, I dislike EA enough to avoid Origin like the plague, but I do find Steam acceptable. Those that complain about it I beleive are the DRM purists, and for them there is always GoG or keeping an eye on HumbleBundle. Steam is about as out-of-your-way as you can get for a digital distribution platform. Yes you can't lend any game you bought to a friend, but I don't find myself doing that anyway.

Re:They don't learn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46956315)

PSN lost me as soon as they offered those "free" games (as long as you paid for PSN+), when initially the part in parens wasn't made abundantly clear.

The parens part was made abundantly clear whenever you tried to download a free game available to PSN+ subscription.

Either you can't read, or you just never bothered to read and clicked through everything displayed.

Re:They don't learn (2)

khchung (462899) | about 3 months ago | (#46956299)

People fled gaming-PCs because of all the bullshit: obtuse DRM, all the half-done buggy games that need to be patched to be playable, the annoying installations and so on.

I take it you don't play console games, else you would have known that people fled gaming-PC because of the constantly escalating system requirements (what? my 2 year old PC is too slow for this new game already?!), headaches about driver compatibilities ("My game crashes a lot" -> "which video card are you using?"), blatant and widespread cheating, and of course, buggy games that are partly due to wide variety of hardware/OS combinations that are impossible to test for.

Console, for better or worse, have uniform/very limited number of configurations (both hardware and OS level), and DRM-locked harder than a chastity belt, which naturally result in fewer bugs (fewer, not none), uniform performance for all players (no need to worry about minimum or optimal system requirements), and no hacks (at least not those within the machine).

When I buy a console game, say, for my PS3, I just need to check the "PS3" logo to be almost 100% sure it will "just work" on my PS3, even though it was years old. Can't say that if I wanted to buy a game for my years old PC.

Re:They don't learn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46956675)

I became console-only after Splinter Cell came out for Xbox. Prior to that I was constantly fucking around with drivers and upgrading laptops and desktops. That's how it works though, and I don't fault game devs. They push their art to the limits they can and if you want be in that rat race, you need to be willing to pay the taxes. I can buy a Ferrari Testarossa for about $40k and have THE dream car of my childhood for less than the price of a modern luxury sedan or sports coup, but in order to do so, I need to be willing to maintain the proper upkeep, a few grand a year, plus a $4k spike every few years for major preventative maintenance. But seriously, Ferrari master race!

I like most of the types of games that have existed on consoles. The graphics have always been good enough for me. Living in a console vacuum, the PC master race arguments about higher res graphics has always been lost of me. I don't subscribe to game magazines or follow gaming blogs. I always just used Gamespot and TechTV/G4 (RIP) for my game info. To make another metaphor, I own a 1959 Les Paul. The electronics are the same as in Jimmy Page's. Before I owned it, I didn't know how much better it sounded compared to the other Les Pauls I've owned and played, but the greatest that is my '59 in no way subtracts from the enjoyment I get out of other guitars, but it does make me less likely to buy new guitars when I come across them.

Consoles have been great fun for me. However, my switch to playing a lot of multiplayer games like COD have affected my interest in consoles. I really don't enjoy going into a game lobby and hearing angry tweens and angrier wage slaves screaming obscenities or cheating. This doesn't make me want a PC though, because I know it's more about the state of gaming and move towards multiplayer and no-single player mode games. What it makes me, is antisocial and desiring to unplug altogether and just play an old SNES or buy that PC just so I can play games that will likely never go multiplayer, like Europa Universalis. I probably wouldn't mind chasing PC upgrades if I felt there was a lot of value there for me. But there isn't.

What is content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46953131)

Just redefine "content". The game is not content it is a game. a Downloadable Content, DLC, is content. The OP assumes wrong. but then again it is a policy not a law.

Seriously stupid, but not the only option. (1)

HideyoshiJP (1392619) | about 3 months ago | (#46953721)

So, this seems like a seriously stupid purchase choice. The unlock, however, is "DLC" for a game that is available from PS Plus, and therefore subject to further PS Plus membership. For $10 more, however, you can just purchase the silly game outright. I assumed the $10 more option was going to be the only way to get the whole shebang from the beginning. Having said that, considering the outrage, perhaps Sony/Evolution should just forget this option and offer a $10 discount to PS Plus members, considering the outrage.

Shouldn'nt that be (1)

wxjones (721556) | about 3 months ago | (#46954881)

ratchet?

Might as well start going to the arcade again. (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about 3 months ago | (#46954923)

- Pay for the system.
- Pay for the game.
- Pay for a subscription to an online service so you can play the game.
- Pay for additional content to add to the game.

Pay, pay, pay, pay more, pay more again. It's like bringing the arcade experience of feeding quarters home. Is this really progress?

Support open source games (1)

future assassin (639396) | about 3 months ago | (#46955619)

Join a community and help develop/run/use open source games. Unlike movies or other entertainment with enough support OS games could flourish with the right community behind them. The cost of development is no where near what a movie would be even something like say Pioneer 1.

Support the used game market, since the 80's even 90's 8bit + systems there's 1000's of games out there that probably 90% of gamers don't know they exist.

How about using Kickstarer to fund development of game systems/emulators that will play Nintendo/Sega/Atari/etc... cartridges?

So it's tortious interference of contract (1)

Khyber (864651) | about 3 months ago | (#46955997)

Your contract with Sony obviously came before your contract with the makers of DriveClub, and Driveclub's contract goes directly against the contract with Sony..

Sue the makers of DriveClub for tortious interference of contract. It's an open and shut case. You can't lose unless you do something stupid like make a filing error.

They responded with a Fix already (1)

CronoCloud (590650) | about 3 months ago | (#46960181)

And they fixed the issue. Now if you upgrade the PS+ demo with the DLC, you can keep playing the full game even if you let your PS+ subscription lapse...which is the behavior everyone wanted. Figured they'd do it.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...