Sony Spain software manager Juan Jimenez says nascent network pass program will be extended to Naughty Dog's upcoming adventure shooter.
In addition to depicting another skirmish between the last vanguard of humanity and the Chimera, Resistance 3 was the first game to incorporate Sony's network pass program. Now, a Sony employee has confirmed that Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception will also employ the tactic.
Speaking with Spanish-language site The Vault, Sony Spain software manager Juan Jimenez said Uncharted 3 will follow the network pass model of Resistance 3.
Drake's Deception, and other forthcoming titles that are part of the online pass program, will come bundled with a single-use code that grants users "full online access for that title." Secondhand gamers will need to pay $10 for the pass.
The online pass initiative is seen as an effort to make buying games new more attractive than buying them used (a sale that puts no money in the publisher's pocket). Electronic Arts, THQ, and Ubisoft are among the publishers that have used online passes in their own games.
For more on the game, check out GameSpot's previous coverage of Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception.
[UPDATE]: A Sony representative confirmed for GameSpot that Uncharted 3 will use an online pass.
Eddie Makuch (Mack-ooh) is a News Editor at GameSpot. He works out of the company's Boston office in Somerville, Mass., and loves extra chunky peanut butter.
I'm so sick of the whiners...if you want to play online on naughty doggs servers, cough up 10 bucks, or buy it new, the end. Stop complaining about everything, if you oppose online passes, dont buy games that have them. If you care about multiplayer that much you will either buy new or pay for the pass. Its just a bunch of whiney kids who have an undeserved sense of entitlement.
I had just recently found out that Arkham City is doing an online pass and found out through comments that this game is doing it too. All I have to say is f*** this!
@moviequest14 ? when did I say that. I just said just stating the principle of the thing is not a very good argument; Since if you are affected by it then it is not just the principle anymore. Naughty Dog is one studio, Rockstar games has 9 studios so put 2 and 2 together. Sony is the parent company and I doubt Naughty Dog cares much about this pass thing to tell them otherwise. You didn't pay for the game new but if you go online multiplayer/co-op you still use a server maintained by people who paid for the game new.
@LordRaymond : So you are basically saying that the only ones that have the right to say anything about it is those being directly effected by it but they have no right to say anything about it since they buy games used? Then I suppose that could give Naughty Dog (which is technically with Sony anyways,Naughty Dog isn't like rockstar games that makes a wide variety of titles that are multiplatform,they work in joint with Sony for ''first party'' titles) to screw over the used game market without even a word against them?
@moviequest14 You said its the principle of the thing and I said that is not a strong argument. Also if you're taking a stance please get your facts right. Sony made the PSN pass be used for its first party games not the studio. The principle of being shot in the back? That isn't a practical example and it is a crime.
Hmmmm, I guess the bright side of this is that only true fans will be playing online for the first few months.
@LordRaymond : That makes no sense,what I am saying is I don't buy most games used...especially major titles.So this technically doesn't effect me,but I still find it an offense that Naughty Dog would do this.That is like saying you shouldn't complain about crime as long as you aren't being shot in the back.
@moviequest14 But only against someone due to principal of the matter is not a strong argument.
@Bigbudd0045 : That is the exact same excuse developers could use...there also wasn't offline multiplayer for several generations of games but that doesn't mean we should have to pay for it now.It is called PROGRESS anybody with any sense would expect games to add new features as time progresses,it is much more absurd to think that a company SHOULD charge for any feature simply because it is new..otherwise we would be paying out the nose for options,concept art,offline multiplayer,and any other feature added in the past 10 years (I thought that is what we are paying $60 for.......).If we incorporated that twisted logic into game purchases we would be paying $120 per game for ''features''.
If Sony/Naughty Dog wants to boost new game sales (as opposed to used) then they should follow in the footsteps of Nintendo.Nintendo offers exclusives,perks,and cool items for pre-orders Sony/Naughty Dog just offers a feature that most games already have and a ''punishment'' for anyone that does decide to buy it used.
@LordRaymond : Oh yeah huh? I buy around 85% of my games new and only buy used what I am only mildly interested in.It is the principle..not what it effects me.
@worlock77 : Uncharted2 made more than most game companies hope to make in their entire company-lives on NEW game sales and if Naughty Dog can't suffice with a small fortune as a profit then their problem isn't used game sales,it is not knowing how to manage money.
@worlock77 : Just in case you didn't know this,used games aren't new! Gamestop opened 1984..game stores have been selling used games since before uncharted was even thought of.If even $1million is made by gamestop that is 1/180 what Naughty Dog would be losing.FYI if anyone is losing money on used games sales it is retailers,not publishers,a store tells the game-maker how many copies want,so if someone instead decides to buy used then that is only one copy left in RETAILER stock.Also is the point it will be several weeks,even months,before enough of those copies are sold to used-game retailers and even then at a considerably discounted price which,by the time those used games are in the cycle,Naughty Dog will have already made several million dollars.And that is again the point,if used game sales were actually making a noticable difference then Naughty Dog wouldn't be making $180million in sales.Everything you are saying/naughty dog is doing in excuse is out of the point,because these would be actions if Naughty dog were either a. a small new company that was limited on budget. b.Being dramatically effected by used games or c.a new title with no promise for success but uncharted 3 is NONE of the above.Hundreds of small no-name indie companies are able to host online servers and make MUCH less money than Naughty Dog so why is it that these companies that are probably 1/900'th the size of NaughtyDog/Sony able to ''afford'' keeping online servers up even with used game sales.
Don't care. Either I am buying it new, or I will buy it used and pay to play online. I love that a whole generation of gamers has grown up thinking that everything should be free. Do you know how much more content is in even a crappy game nowdays compared to the 8bit or 16bit era? If this bothers you so much, dont play online and dont buy the game, the end. You have the ultimate freedom...no one is forcing you to buy it. If you dont care about the multiplayer dont get it. The single player in UC alone is worth the price of admission, I am a huge fan and will pay to play online if i get it used. What they should do is inlcude 4 or 5 hours free to rope people in...but just my take. If you dont agree I dont care and to be honest i dont care if you do.
@moviequest14 I am doing nothing of the sort. Simply put Naughty Dog/Sony is a business. Businesses exist to make money. It's not that they lose money with online (although technically they do so long as it costs them anything and they charge nothing), but such costs have, presumable, always been covered by the money they make from game sales. Used game sales, however, have cut into their bottom line, so they will look to other areas to make up that money. The online portion being one area they always have control over, and being one area that's going to cost them money for as long as they provide it, is their area of choice. And that's fair. It's absolutely fair.
@warhawk-greeby : I agree,most actions games now-a-days are purely fps's and often tend to blend in with the static and (imo) ps3 has,for some reason,seemed like a disappointment (compared to ps2) but Uncharted HAS been one of the shining stars or ''diamonds in the rough'' and has been one of the strongest/only reasons for me even wanting a ps3.
@Sigil-otaku Nah to be fair it's your view and that's fair enough, I'd never say bad things about a game until I've actually played it which appears to be your viewpoint also. The Uncharted games to me aren't necessarily about the story, they're fun and frantic and that's about all there is to it. They're never going to win awards for the stories, but as far as the game design goes I'd say they're flawless. The research that goes in to the locations must be something special too, because in both games now they've nailed the scenery and environment on the head. The graphics have always been spectacular, and all the little details are amazing. I remember when I played a demo for Uncharted 1 and was genuinely amazed by the water effects - including the wet clothes (in a non-perverse way :P) I personally found Uncharted refreshing; although there was the usual guns and violence, the games also brought with them great depth and humour. Nolan North has been absolutely superb so far for the series, and really brought the character of Drake to life. Basically the Uncharted games seemed to fill a missing void, the Tomb Raider games had become something of a disappointment and the space was there to fill. I can understand you saying they're slightly repetitive and guessable, but as far as gameplay actually goes they're immersive and generally just a blast to play. Some may say over-rated but others will say not a chance. It all depends on peoples tastes.
@worlock77 : Even ''many'' is a huge exaggeration.Yes Naughty Dog technically has the ''right'' to charge for servers..they even have the ''right'' to charge $150 for their game,that doesn't mean it is smart of they should.The main problem with this theory is you are acting as though Naughty Dog is doing us a favor by letting us buy this game.We owe Naughty Dog (or any publisher for that matter) nothing.If anyone is getting ripped off from used game sales it is retailers...not the publisher,used games are only a scapegoat for publishers to try to make even more money,as I have said before..if Naughty Dog (or any company for that matter) were actually losing money on online it wouldn't have been free for all these years,they only realized there is a 2% profit that they aren't making that they could be making..and this is where the big punch again comes in,if Naughty Dog was a small company that was just starting out and had to count their income in cents then that would be one thing,but I could hook up my entire neighborhood with power for a month and Naughty Dog wouldn't even notice a dent in their profit and especially wouldn't notice a room full of equipment for an online server. ANYTHING.consider this if you will,if Uncharted 3 sells like uncharted 2 did (at roughly 3.8million copies) at $60 per game...that translated very roughly into about $180MILLION yet Naughty Dog will be willing to nitpick and complain over a tiny server? That is the best laugh I have had all day!
@moviequest14 No, I do not. Hence why I said "many", not "most". Still the restrooms are provided for the business' customers. That many business do not require you to purchase something in order to use the restroom does not mean that other businesses have no right to. It's the same with game developers/publishers and online play. If you're using the online portion then you're using their servers, thus using their resources. Asking you to contribute a few dollars towards these costs is fair. If you're bought the game new then you've done that. If you bought it used then you haven't. Just because some publishers are nice enough to let you use their servers for for nothing doesn't mean that every one should be obligated to.
@AncientDozer i know wht u mean it is jst tht i always prefer things to be new for some stupid reason since i never trade in my discs i like to keep them :D
Funny, a game like Dark Souls doesn't need an online pass to have an amazing multiplayer experience, yet bigger companies like Sony insist on having people buy it. If a company like From Software/Atlus can afford to run servers w/o charging people extra, why would Sony? For shame. I for one preordered Dark Souls day one for this reason...well, that and it's punishingly difficult :)
@worlock77 : While you act as though that is true with 90% of businesses it is not...in fact I can't even remember the last time I saw a pay-to-use bathroom and you sure a hell don't see them in major-company restaurants like Mcdonalds,Burger King,etc. usually ONLY in London or at small local gas stations.While meant as a trap that actually proves my point even more..much like this ''special'' multiplayer function it is EXTREMELY rare to find a pay-to-use bathroom and you again sure don't see it in major companies.
What has PSN+ got to do with retail games? You may as well ask what the point of LIVE is. I bought both mass effects second hand and had to get extra points cerburus network in 2. that's a silly comment getting thumbs up.
@heartindarkness I do. I trust used games I buy from respectable locations like game stop which tests each one.
ahh won't matter nvr rly was the type to get used games i jst can't trust a used game tht's jst me :/
@moviequest14 Since you brought up the restaurant/bathroom comparison - why do you think many businesses don't allow you to use their bathroom unless you purchase something from them?
@pakhaiir : Thanks a ton! :D But it seems almost as though you are implying Nintendo has already fallen through with the dlc and online crap.So far Nintendo has been one of the only companies I know of that has notably stood against dlc,f2p,etc. while other companies I never expected to caved in.
@warhawk-geeby Nice response. Sorry but I just find the games predictable, as stated with my reasoned criticisms there are just far too many frequently recurring story mechanics in Uncharted for me to get excited about replace place x and monster x and merc group x along with old faces popping up. I did state all the games were good on there own grounds but people seem to have ignored that as any criticism of Uncharted (god forbid) is bound to be recognised with fanboy reactions alone. Sorry but with the stories not even coherently connecting gears of war has a bigger and more coherent story and from what I've seen (gears 3 seems to look at the characters more) it's even beat uncharted on character development. This isn't a 360 exclusive vs PS3 argument, it's a stereotype against meat head series vs over rated shooter series argument. I just like Uncharted but find it vastly over rated. That goes over peoples heads as they squee over every little thing Drake does though and ignore valid criticisms. I'd discuss it but I've never seen an Uncharted fan actually willing to discuss things lol.
The big problems for me with these passes has been mentioned by a couple of posters. Are these codes tied to an account or a console? I shouldn't need to pay extra for everyone who might use my system and my copy of the game to play online.
@worlock77 : NaughtyDog will EASILY be making enough profit off of Game sales to keep servers running for years and years.Just because something costs money doesn't mean the consumer should have to pay for it,that is like a restaurant charging for bathroom usage since the water and power bills cost them.It does very much matter how many times this has been done...if even small local producers and not amazingly popular titles can afford to keep online servers up then a massive game company like NaughtyDog (especially with Sony backing) should EASILY be able to do so.It might be a different case if NaughtyDog were some small,no-name,indie game company with not a penny to their name and only starting out,but that isn't the case,Naughty Dog has become massively successful and should be the company LEAST likely to pull a cheap trick like this.
@ Blitzwn36 Yes, the car industry and media industry cannot be absolutely compared. However you lack the knowledge of how retail works. Video, books/magazines, and video games are all paid for by the retailers before they even receive the product. Your money is not going to the developers; it's going to the retailer. The game industry has already made it's money and more often then not a AAA title has already broke even well before release day. Now, those who buy used don't buy it when it's still $55. They usually wait until it's well below that (at the most, $45). Now, you may think that waiting and then buying used is just as bad. However, that money would still not be going to the developers any way. The video game indusrty is the only media industry that does not allow returns for unsold product. Videos (DVD/Blu-ray) are allowed to be returned from the retailer to the manufacturer (read: movie studio). Usually so they can repackage it for a lower price point under a new SKU/UPC. Books and magazines are destroyed. Any video game that doesn't sell ends up collecting dust either in a retailers back room, in a $20 bin, or sitting under the new releases that people would rather want. They are artificially raising the price because games do need a price hike. People complain over how "expensive" games are. But people have have short memories and forget that for the entire history of the business, games have been $50. And that was back when it was one-man development teams.
Well I was getting this day one anyway so couldn't really give a crap :P If Sony did a Microsoft however and announced that 4 expansion packs would be coming out I'd be miffed. That isn't additional content, that's left out content. It's the DLC nonsense we should all be getting worked up over.
I bet most of the people against this are the people who wait to buy the game cheap and used at Gamestop.
Wow, Uncharted was already basically a bad series (in my opinion, and that's bad series not game as each one is okay on it's own) due to none of the stories really connecting in any meaningful way (i.e. it's just a bunch of random missions in drakes life) and being so damn predictable as you know your going to go against some mercs / thugs / criminals and you know half way through chasing them to the treasure you'll blow up or crash some vehicle and drake will limp around for 2 seconds before doing unbelievable tests of stamina and endurance. Follow this with the same trick of OMG monster and here we are approaching the end boss fight. Anyway back on topic, now the game is worth even less as the resale value sucks unless you want to miss online yourself. GJ Sony. I'm at odds with this because on one hand PSN is free, Sony does a good job with that so fair enough they need money somehow but on another level they are just weakening there better games and there first party line up. This is like how PS3 was backwards compatible and then it was just selling us old games with a slight, poor HD remaking of them per game. How much more can they keep trying to cash in?
out of all developers at least Sony & Microsoft should avoid this s***. After all these are first party games and boost console sales and fame too. @moviequest14 Loved what you said but I'm talking the same thing on forums since this bs online pass is introduced and that's why I'll never buy these games new to at least protest
@moviequest14 Obviously there are hundreds of online game that don't charge for play. Yet that does not negate the fact that servers cost money to run and maintain. Just because you may be getting a service for free does not mean that service costs nothing to provide.
And I just want to note to all of you acting like gamestop making a profit off of used games is new...gamestop (or at least its original form) opened in 1984 and gained more fame in the mid-to-late 90's which was around 15-20 years (depending on when you consider them ''successful'') before all this ''used games doomsday'' #### started up.Used games/gamespot is simply the scapegoat of companies that want an excuse to make even more of a profit.
We've got everything you ever wanted to know about the games coming out in 2012.
Users who looked at this article also looked at these content items.
Microsoft confirms that it won't charge any fees for any titles eligible for resale. Full Story
Playing Xbox One games on somebody else's console will also require a check-in every hour. Full Story
Sony confirms a $399/€399/£349 price for the PlayStation 4 hardware, $100 cheaper than Microsoft's Xbox One. Full Story
Will be coming in 2014. Full Story
Pan's Labyrinth director praises Ken Levine and Irrational Games for latest BioShock, says he would consider large-scale Pacific Rim game "God willing." Full Story
Xbox boss Don Mattrick believes concerns over connectivity are overblown, recommends Xbox 360 for those without an Internet connection. Full Story
EA Labels boss Frank Gibeau describes new project as "open-world action adventure game." Full Story
Sony on why it won't hinder PS4 used games--flexibility creates value
PlayStation boss Jack Tretton says ability to freely resell games creates value in the initial purchase; PS4 won't require online check-in because many...
