Zipper Interactive is planning to take the "online pass" concept to new heights (or lows), by introducing a code that unlocks SOCOM Pro.
The traditional online pass system, pioneered by EA, restricts online multiplayer access unless a $10 code is purchased. With SOCOM 4, used customers can access the multiplayer, but will be locked out of exclusive updates. In this way, Zipper is similar to an eighties portrayal of a drug dealer, offering the first hit for free.
Four ranked playlists will available to Pro users, which are to be continually updated throughout the game's lifespan. Two of the most popular weapons in shooter history are exclusively available to brand new purchasers, the M-16 and AK-47. In addition, only Pro users will get future updates to co-op and competitive multiplayer, including maps and dedicated leaderboards.
Here's the real kicker though -- a SOCOM 4 Pro code will cost $14.99 on the PlayStation Network.
The devaluation of used games (and thus the eventual f*cking over of the entire industry) continues. I hope these geniuses know that they're contributing to their own reduced sales, long-term.
Introducing SOCOM Pro [PS Blog]
Jim Sterling serves as reviews editor for Destructoid.com, head of the Podtoid podcast, and produces a number of news stories, original features, one-of-a-kind videos. With his passionate argumentative style, controversial opinions, harsh delivery, and dedication to brutal honesty Sterling is a name that you can't help but recognize.
Likes
PS2, iPod Touch, Silent Hill 2, Metal Gear Solid, Dynasty Warriors 3
Meet the rest of the team
| BBcode help |
| [b]Bold text[/b] |
Bold text |
| [i]Italic text[/i] |
Italic text |
| [url]http://www.dtoid.com/[/url] |
http://www.dtoid.com |
| [url=http://www.dtoid.com/]Web link[/url] |
Web link |
|
| [img]http://www.example.com/robot.jpg[/img] |
 |
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
87 comments | showing # 1 to 50
|
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
8:20 AM on 04.18.2011 | 
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.
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.
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.
I do agree though, that regardless it's a trend that needs to cease existence.
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.
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 is no "better or worse" in these situations. Sure, one might seem worse, but really both options are fucking consumers over.
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
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.
[citation needed]
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.
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.
You know what won't have an online pass? Battlefield 3. Buy Battlefield 3 instead.
Buy online, get games cheap, cheaper than you'd get second hand a GAME or Gamestation.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.