"But but but but...we wanna make money nooooooooow~~~! *whine*"

Further enforcing the industry's new paradigm: you never "buy" or "own" a game anymore, you're just "renting" the privilege of playing them.

Dumbest. Idea. Ever.

No hair off my back....as I am not touching this Dog turd of a game with a 10ft stick. SOCOM 4 is such a horrid departure from what made the originals great....that I can actually say that sometimes it is better to let a series fade away or put on the shelf until a worthy successor is developed.

Zipper....what the hell happened to you?? SOCOM 4 almost in no way resembles its past iterations and is an unbalanced, almost completely unplayable mess.

Save your money peeps....there are much better games on the horizon to spend your money on.

Which further pushes me ever closer to simply going and pirating every game I buy. The original copies are so overly-fucked now, and I'm sure the pirates will hack the thing anyway, like they always do. And there's no way I'm paying 15 bucks for shitty multiplayer.

well its not like socom is gonna sell

Wow. Can't believe this. 15 bucks for a "pro" pass. It's kind of getting out of hand.
I don't mind paying extra for maps added as dlc or even extra costumes/characters in other games. But, I really do long for the days of paying for/renting/borrowing a game and getting the whole product.

It's even sadder when you read the comment section on the source itself and people are eating it up.

Doesn't seem that bad to me.
1) Socom 4 has been getting crappy reviews anyway.
2) The multiplayer they're offering for free sounds better than not having one at all for preowned buyers.

While this sucks, this is honestly still better than just flatout locking the player out of multiplayer. So if anything, it's a step ABOVE the EA way.

I do agree though, that regardless it's a trend that needs to cease existence.

Seriously?

Most companies are removing ALL ONLINE FUNCTINALITY unless a pass is entered.

For this you can still play online, you can essentially buy used for cheap, play single player, co-op, AND online, and just miss out on a couple of guns and game modes, and some mystery future content.

Or you can buy new to get everything, or buy used and a pass.

This, to me, is a million times better than the "NO ONLINE FOR YOU" method.


I think if this is a concern, then what is more of a concern is that retailers obviously aren't dropping the used price by the cost of the pass, that should have been every used retailer's first move when these pass systems came about.

I mean the used game is actually less valuable now that online is not included. If they're charging the same price they always were it's the retailers who are totally out of order!!

I've not bought used for a while, so i don't know. But I would expect used games "sans pass" should be like £10 cheaper than used games that don't need a pass.

Know what I mean?

I don't really hold it against publishers to hold small parts back (guns, modes) unless some cash is kicked their way (come on guys, it's only a fucking tenner) - what I do fucking hold against them is when they limit ALL ONLINE GAMING to new purchases and code buyers.

Seriously, this takes what EA, THQ and others have been doing and moves it a step more towards consumer freedom.

I really can't fault this.

@Sexual

ANY restrictions on used games are unacceptable. There are no EULAs in consle games - When you buy a console game, it's YOUR PROPERTY. Putting an agreement only into the online SERVICE is a way to make sure you don't get full functionality out of what you OWN.

The more I hear about this bullshit, the more I want to just give up gaming. This generation isn't even remotely close to being as consumer- and player-friendly as the previous one was.

There's no freedom when you're not getting everything on the fucking disc that you paid for, regardless of who sold it to you and for how much.......

There is no "better or worse" in these situations. Sure, one might seem worse, but really both options are fucking consumers over.

not a problem here, I will be simply looking right over SOCOM4 towards Mortal Kombat and Portal 2. From the reviews I have read, the game is mediocre at best and this is a BAD move. Developers seem to forget that online pass limits the amount of people who will play online. Developers need used game sales to support an online community and keep someone playing the game. Before you say it, I did read the article and know that it does include some portions of multiplayer. However, if I don't like the content that will be available
if i buy it used, why would i spend another 15.00 for more of the same? Also, 15.00 is the point where I dont buy. I havent purchased 1 map pack for MW2 or COD:BO for that exact reason. I did, however, buy all the map packs for World at War. 25% of the games new price value is overpriced. Again, I will be enjoying the hell out of MK and Portal 2 tomorrow,but no SOCOM4

Saw the title of the articlle and said to myself "that's Mr. Sterling!!"

I think this I the best way to do it actually. Anyone dumb enough to pay $50 for a used game is dumb enough to pay another $10-$15 to play online. $10 off on a used product is not a deal.

For anyone smart enough to wait for the price of the game to drop, and then find a real deal on a used copy this is a way to check and see if the online game is any fun, and if anyone is still playing without paying full pop right away. If it's still good, I probably only spent $5-$10 on the game, so the pass isn't a big deal.

"I hope these geniuses know that they're contributing to their own reduced sales, long-term"

[citation needed]

Here come the sheep.

I've gotta agree with SC
While I HATE the idea of having to pay for an online pass for any used game, at least it's not as bad as EA sports games where you can't play online at all.

It sounds like this might be similar to the VIP Pass in BFBC2.
If all new maps are free (kinda) after paying a one time fee, then "I guess" I'm ok with it. It would still be much cheaper than buying a bunch of over priced map packs like the COD series.

This isn't screwing anyone over any more than "free DLC" with a new game. I think what Microsoft does with their gold membership and EA does to used games with their online passes is way worse. The game seems mediocre so I'm not buying it anyway but yeah.

It isn't completely gimped and you can still get a decently full online experience from a used copy.

For the record, I am a gold member and I only buy games new.

But SOCOM is balls so who gives a fuck?

You know what won't have an online pass? Battlefield 3. Buy Battlefield 3 instead.

Buying second-hand is really a fools game.

Buy online, get games cheap, cheaper than you'd get second hand a GAME or Gamestation.

"this is a way to check and see if the online game is any fun, and if anyone is still playing without paying full pop right away. If it's still good, I probably only spent $5-$10 on the game, so the pass isn't a big deal."

THIS!
-----
Wah wah I bought and own this disc and can sell it wah wah.

I'm pretty sure games are marked as "not for resale" and as such, shouldn't be sold used anyway, look you're getting a game, you're getting it cheap in the exact same condition it was when it was expensive (without shrink wrap) and the publisher wants a little kickback to make up some of the difference.

I'm definitely a supporter of the used market, I do a lot of trading in to buy new games! But to be so up in arms about the people who actually make the games wanting a little kickback from your knockdown price, back door deals with gamestop, is pretty fucking entitled and pathetic.

This way, the gamers get the game and can even have a cheap version if they want, or a not quite so cheap full version a little while after release. EVERYONE can play ONLINE and EVERYONE gets PAID.



My problem is that this particular system is WAY BETTER than most, and you guys are smashing it like they're some kind of fucking war criminal.

I'm literally confused as to how this can be any worse than NO ONLINE AT ALL schemes....



Also, if you pay for LIVE you have no place to talk out against this. This STILL gives you MORE THAN LIVE DOES for free.

Quit bitching.

I'm sure I would be very upset if I had terrible taste in games.

Couldnt give a rats ass about SOCOM 4 anyway. So i guess Zipper gets put on my "no buy list" right along with EA and THQ. Fuck these companies. I hope the gaming industry does fucking fail, just so i can go back and blame it on them.

If you morons would quit going to Gamestop, none of this would have happened!

@pedrovay

I agree with you that restrictions are BS. But what restrictions are there? You still have access to all the main modes, maps, and weapons with no restrictions. You still have access to all of that unlike other online pass games that screw you out of an entire experience. This Pro membership is OPTIONAL. It's not required. You can still enjoy and play the game without it, but the extras are nice. This is basically DLC without the name DLC attached to it and people are throwing a big hissy fit over it.

And to be brutally honest, I would much rather have this than DLC. I would rather pay a one time fee of $15 to gain access to new modes, weapons, and maps that constantly update with new content than to have to pay $7 or $10 for a DLC pack. This is how online multiplayer DLC should be, but nobody is even talking about it that way. They're just focused on "the used consumer getting screwed" despite the whole Pro thing being optional to begin with.

I can't say I'm on board with this. Putting anything behind a paywall after the first sale feels a little too much like extortion.

Man, that sucks to hear, well kinda. heard the game is crap so I don't care, but this pay for play shit is terrible. I blame all you people who play Farmville. The big guys of the industry have taken notice, and if people are willing to pay to have a pumpkin patch on their farm in farmville, they will pay for DLC.

I understand your point Jim, but let's be honest here: do you really think that a $5 discount price is reallt THAT much of a saving? I know games are expensive, but between paying $60 for a brand-new game and $55 for the used one, then the answer is obvious.

Besides, it makes more sense to give the free taste of the multiplayer and then giving the option of buying it, to just lock it altogether.

But we can agree on something: $15 is WAY TOO MUCH!! If you're really going to use an online pass, $5 is a fair price, not $10 or $15.

I agree that this is better than, say, the method used in Homefront, it still discouraes me from buying SOCOM 4.

*discourages

@Jose Pedro Abalos - Gamestop isn't the only place you can buy used games. Additionally, you don't have to buy recently used games right away anyway. Smart people wait for prices to go down as buying used means you don't have to be a consumer whore.

And see, those are the people Sony and EA are worrying themselves over right now. The people that don't buy day one and don't buy new. They're trying to eliminate sane consumers who like saving money.

Give the consumer some fucking credit and some value while you're at it, guys, you'll attract more flies with honey than vinegar. Right now, all you're losing is my business.

This being 'better' than the rest isn't actually better. They're still stiffing the customer by not giving them all the features because they didn't buy the game the way the developer/publisher wants them to. When I buy a game, no matter how I bought it, it's my choice and I shouldn't be punished because I want to buy it a specific way. It's one thing to want me to buy your game, it's another to tell me how I should or I'm not going to get something out of it.

It's my money, that I'm giving to them. I choose how I want to spend it, not them in their shady bully type of ways.

But like said, you can be a fucking Sheep if you want.

Lol nice scam.

3/10

I have no problem with online passes and such. You don't get automatic rights to servers and networking just because you bought a disc. I can understand why developers are annoyed that not only did they not get any money from the resale, but that the new owners are now using network resources, which cost money to maintain, without contributing anything toward that maintenance. Of course, I think buying used is an enormous waste of money, anyway, and never do it.

This move by Zipper basically equates to what BioWare does with day-one DLC, which makes it better than EA's online passes. You'd think Sterling would at least call it an improvement. The only problem I have is that $15 is not a reasonable price. This package should be sub $10, if anything.

I also think Sterling's theory that somehow the entire industry will fall apart because of this is extremely simplistic. If anything, it might push people into buying discounted titles instead of used, which is still much better for the industry long-term.

The more damage publishers do to the used market, the closer we come to seeing the gaming bubble burst wide open. Intentionally devaluing your own product to encourage sales of new product can never work in the long term, and is a poor bandage in the short term to say the least.

Consumers really should be asking themselves a simple question here. If the gaming industry makes more money than any form of entertainment ever, and has seen consumer support explode in the last decade, why is it that publishers cannot seem to make a profit? Why, if consumer support for the industry is incredibly strong, should the consumers front the bill for the toxic business models being used by publishers today, who cant turn that consumer support into a profit?

The simple answer would be that the huge publishers used the boom in gaming popularity and sales to line their pockets, and to one up each other in the production values department. Production costs skyrocket, and despite massive consumer support, the cost to the consumer rises with them. We pay for their short sighted mistakes because they wont change their non functional business models.

@The Silent Protagonist:

I see your point, and in that sense I definitely agree with you. But what I usually see is that the price difference between new and used is so marginal (usually 10%) that I prefer to buy new. And I'm also talking for the $40 games and the $20 games.

Now, it's true that there are other places other than Gamestop, but looking at the big picture, what sells more: Gamestop or Amazon?

But it's true, you gotta attract people with honey and not vinegar. My point is that I don't see THAT much value in a used game vs new, not even in the long run.

I can't tell if some of you are being serious or just trolling. The fact that there is ANY segregation among new and used purchasers is a bad thing. Used purchasers shouldn't get less content because they want to save a little money. Believe it or not, $10 can make a big difference to someone who is counting pennies and it means the difference between not having a game and using that cash for something else or buying one. Call me cheap or whatever you want, but my money is better put to use elsewhere.

Okay, so you can play online, but new purchasers get all the updates and maps and so forth, which still means that in the future used purchasers are still missing out unless they drop some quid. This may be okay with some of you, but it isn't with me. I believe that outside of that initial sale, the consumer is free to do anything with a game that they bought, and yes, OWN. You don't see car companies charging $10 if you want to use rear-view mirrors because you bought a pre-owned vehicle, or book publishing houses charging $15 to allow you to read the ending to a book. If anyone feels "entitled" to anything here, it's the video game publishers who think they are exempt from the used market that is a part of almost EVERY OTHER FUCKING MARKET OUT THERE.

it's not like the game is even good to pay those 15$ so who cares?

@pedrovay2003

While I understand your anger over this (after all, paying for a product seems like it should make it yours), they are not restricting you from using the product - merely from using the product in a certain way (namely, on their dedicated servers).

This isn't that uncommon; WoW, for instance, charges monthly fees to use their online service, despite the fact that the individual gamers 'own' the physical media. The content is there, but you need the company's property to access it.

I won't be touching this game but if I want an online game I buy new 95% of the time. It's the single player games I usually buy used as if you wait too long with an MP game the community drops down when the next hit comes out.

I don't see anything wrong with this when so many games aren't free to play. I love games. Who gives a fuck. I'm stoned, and horny.

I love how some people judge a game based on reviews, like some of the comments in here. I seen two negative reviews, one being Jim's. I really enjoyed the beta and based on the beta alone would give it a solid 8/10. Zipper have shown with MAG if there are any issues to fix, they fix them on regular basis. And the lag, well, that will be fixed seeing as MAG runs 256 players compared to the 32 max in this game.

Hey Jim, why not take aim at Microsoft for doing the ultimate wallet destroyer by charging to play any game online? PC, Wii, PS3, you can play the games for the price of the game (and an unlock key if bought used game) whereas for the 360 you pay the price of the game, plus the Gold membership, plus the price of an unlock key if bought the game used. So where is the greater evil, really? I understand your point 100%, but look at the bigger picture. Gamers are still pissed at DLC, never mind additional fees of any kind.

Jim i have to disagree with you and most of the people here because as a business stand point Zipper interactive is only trying to look after their profits by eliminating the amount of used Socom 4 sales which they don't make any profit on. Even though some consumers are being hurt over this, its actually better than what EA is trying to do with the online pass.

I do agree that $15 is a little high but at least people are gonna be able to play online regardless. The point is that its impossible that this can hurt the industry because developers are able to make more money from the sales of their games therefore allowing them to make BETTER GAMES and keep the industry growing.

BTW Socom 4 sucks lol

Meh, if they pay you guys enough you will give it a stellar rating that way any sales lost to their bs activities will be washed over by your championing of them.

@Domii

Gamers have made gaming the highest grossing form of media entertainment in history. Publishers should be sacrificing for us, not the other way around.

Its entirely possible that this could hurt the industry, it removes spendable money from the consumer market thanks to a devalued product. Zipper makes more money on their game, and consumers lose more money because even with the online pass, your game is still worth close to nothing.

Also, you're crazy if you think any of this "extra" money will go towards making new games better, publishers have never done this in the past. You're right though, they'll use the money to grow the industry, they've spent years making it bloated and fat, why would they stop now? This "extra" money will go right into feeding the shitty business practices that got them to this point, which is why they now need "extra" money from consumers on existing product.

These online passes are basically the publishers asking us for a handout, telling us we now need to pay more for something we never had to in the past. There's no logistical reason why they should exist, no more people will ever be on their servers than the number of games they sell, they just want to discourage the used market.

...Is it just me or does Jim seem to bounce between "Used games are good!" and "Used games are bad!!" quite often...

Bad system unless you are a Sony troll.

You know, I agree that the used games market should be cultivated, however I also think there needs to be some sort of system so DEVELOPERS can get a cut of the resale.

So though I can see why you might not like this extra charge. I think its fair considering the used games market isn't on fire to put a profit channel back to the creators in place.