PlayStation 4 General DiscussionPS4

[sikbeta]

IF this is true at all, what they want to pull out is an Steam, that's kind of the direction it'd go, on Steam you can't sell and/or borrow a game, it's in your download list in your Steam ID

On the PS3 you can have up to 16 accounts in the system + 16 IDs on PSN and the 16 users can share any game used or downloaded in the console

I really don't think it's going to happen, the workaround to get money out of used games is already set and it's the online-pass, now if they can expand it to Single-player games that would be different, but even if that happens, passes would not be priced as high as the retail price of a new game, doesn't make sense because the game is already used

Worst case scenario would be, to avoid not used games, making you be connected online all the time you're playing the games, it's not new either, has been done on PC for a while now, this is to me, the worst thing they could do

With this method they make sure that games are not pirated and it can expand to other options, by simply going online with a new game, the Service Provider could tell if the game is new or used, IF new you can play it, if it's used, it'll be denied the use of it, unlocking game = $15 aka online-pass

- "but it's a single player game"
-"yep, but it uses *our* online service to work"
-"but I paid for it, should work anyways"
-"no, you paid for an used copy of the game, not for the access to our online service (on PS3/4 free I'd guess), you're not paying for the costs of the servers or anything"

But again, I don't think is going to happen, if things were like this, people would vote with their wallets and say NO to new consoles using these methods, in the end, IF the consoles don't sell, the games are useless and I don't think they'd risk the growth of their userbase (more consoles sold, more chances to sell more games ) just to get money out of those who rent or buy used games

 

[Sanji Himura]

I really don't think it's going to happen, the workaround to get money out of used games is already set and it's the online-pass, now if they can expand it to Single-player games that would be different, but even if that happens, passes would not be priced as high as the retail price of a new game, doesn't make sense because the game is already used

The problem is that WB Games did that ALREADY! Arkham Asylum locked out Catwoman on their "online pass" so that you can not get 100% completion, and thus a plat, on the single player campaign.

 

[LaBounti]

Flawed argument. It makes no financial different from an overhead standpoint whether I play a game for 6 months online, or if I play it for 4, sell it to someone else and they play it for 2. Until the game's servers are shut down, the cost of playing that game online was paid for when the game was bought regardless of how many times it changes hands.


And you can't use the "lost sale" argument because that is even more facetious for this discussion than when it is applied to piracy.

You may be right but explain again why these passes exist to lockout online gameplay without a pass?

 

[Sanji Himura]

It's to, their words anyways, "compete with the used games market." The costs of maintaining these servers is not cheap, and just flat out giving out the online and all of its perks for nothing really sets game publishers off.

It may seem that I am defending the passes, and in a way, I am, but it leads to a slippery slop where okay, you have accepted this, lets see how far we can take it.

 

[LaBounti]

It's to, their words anyways, "compete with the used games market." The costs of maintaining these servers is not cheap, and just flat out giving out the online and all of its perks for nothing really sets game publishers off.

It may seem that I am defending the passes, and in a way, I am, but it leads to a slippery slop where okay, you have accepted this, lets see how far we can take it.

Oh, I know what it means. I'm defending the passes. I felt like Tornado was attacking my opinion as if it had no meaning. What he is missing is my focus on used games were the ones with passes for online, not just any game. Then again he only quoted the part he wanted to and not the focus, the passes. The passes exist, arguing about it isn't going to make them go away. We just voice our opinions.

 

[Sanji Himura]

My apologies. Carry on.

 

[SuperShouden]

Feel free to explain why screwing over consumer's rights is a good or smart idea for Sony and Microsoft to pursue. None of your post did so; and instead basically just explained a bunch of things that might be implemented to mitigate how bad it is.

But it's not screwing over consumer rights. Selling used software technically violates anti-piracy laws. Just like you can copy your music on to your computer and use it pretty much how you want as long as you're NOT making a profit off of it.

Games companies lose money off used games. They get NOTHING from it. And, actually, to be honest, I prefer to buy a brand new game that 9/10 will work, over a used game that will work 50% of the time.

As for what happens if someone needs to get a new disc, I'm sure there ways around it. Heck, with the Xbox, you can load the game on the HDD so it doesn't need the disc. That's one option. Maybe have massive HDDs that people can load their game on and then it's tied to it. I don't like the idea no discs, simply because MS is going to screw that up royally, as they always tend to do with new technology. Even the Kinect had issues when it was first released.

I think maybe a replacement card program would work, as well. Something you can go online or to a retailer and say, hey, my disc got ruined and I need another, and for either free or maybe a couple bucks they give you a replacement disc. I mean...doesn't Microsoft already have something like that in place?

The technology to be rid of used games is out there, and I'm really fine with that. I haven't purchased a used game in a LONG time.

HOWEVER, I do think that after a certain amount of time and depending on the popularity of the game, they should let stores sell used copies and remove the lock on certain titles. Because, after a while, there's just not much money left to be made on a title and...I don't know...I think a sort of "statue of limitations" for the locks should be in place.

 

[Sanji Himura]

But the one concept that no one is getting is that you are actually buying a license to play that game, not the game itself. Yes, there was a day and age where you actually owned the cartridge or what ever was the medium, however, lobbyists for the copyright holders(because it isn't just isolated in the gaming industry), got congress to change the copyright law with the DMCA so they can do pretty much whatever they want with the EULA and forget consumer rights.

 

[Luminis]

As long as you're forced to buy a physical copy of something, though, it's quite problematic to go by just the definiton of a license.

Also, even then, a license is just a contract between two parties - a contract that you can't actually read before agreeing to it, but still. There's nothing that would state that you're prohibited from passing the license on yourself.

If a creditor can pass on the right to the debts of his client, why shouldn't I be able to pass on the right to use a given software to someone else?

 

[Brend]

I won't be buying the PS4 if this turns out to be true. What happens when I want to play a game at my friend's house?

 

[Tornado]

But it's not screwing over consumer rights. Selling used software technically violates anti-piracy laws.

How does that make any sense whatsoever? If used software violated anti-piracy laws, there would be no used games. There would be no used movies. There would be no used books. There would be no used music. None of those things would exist, period.


And, regardless of what any EULA says on the matter, you'd be hard pressed to successfully sue someone over the matter because right to resale is implicit in ownership of goods and an EULA doesn't overrule the law.

Games companies lose money off used games.

Them not getting money for them does not mean the same thing as them losing money from them. That is a logical fallacy intentionally purported by publishers to demonize the used game market, because a used game sale does not mean the same thing as a lost new game sale. The argument holds even less weight then when PC publishers claim every copy of a game pirated is the same as a lost sale.

They get NOTHING from it.

So? Neither does any market that sells used goods with a foundation based on intellectual property. See the list above.

You may be right but explain again why these passes exist to lockout online gameplay without a pass?

Because as I mentioned above, publishers misrepresent the statistics in their favor to garner sympathy. Claiming that extra costs need to be covered when those costs don't actually exist is the easiest way to do so that allows them to get the money they want.

Then again he only quoted the part he wanted to and not the focus, the passes.

Because the part I wanted to quote was the part that invalidated any justification used for them in the first place. The fact of the matter is, the reason given for the passes (to make back money lost when people buy games secondhand and play them online) is invalid. There are no extra costs incurred by secondhand games being played online unless the copy was originally stolen, so acting as if second hand buyers don't deserve to play games online is just buying the crap publishers are shoveling.



Edit: Though it is entirely possible that I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say, so if so please correct me.

 

[Slash]

If any of this stuff comes true I'll stick to my PS3. When that is phased out that'll be it for video games at least for me.

 

[sikbeta]

As long as you use their servers, they can charge you, their servers, they decide who plays and who doesn't, same thing as moderators in online MP, if a mod kick you out of a game for whatever valid reason stated in the TOS, game provider and servers owner (also IP holder) can ban you and not let you play that game online anymore, in this case, they decide that in order to access the online part of the game, you have to pay a fee to unlock it, like serial codes in PC games

Again, I don't think they'll kill used games, but expand passes to SP games in used games can happen, not saying I agree though

Still, the worst thing for me is the part of the rumor that says you have to be online all the time when you play a game, I simply can't do it, my ISP is not working great at all, that's why I don't play GT5 online anymore, I'll just quit gaming if everytime I play a game, my modem disconnects, game stops, save goes to crap and I have to start from scratch, IF this ever happen, they should make it work offline

And IF Sony plans to release a PS4 without BC, they better deliver all kind of games since day one and totally avoid a lackluster launch like the PS3 had, I'm talking about GT6, GOWIV, KZ4, U4 at launch minimun

 

[SuperShouden]

You know, I used to the in the mindset of "who cares if the game companies lose money off of used games." And now...I'd much rather give them the money off a new game than not give them money off a used.

Same thing really goes for other media. If I like an author, I might buy a newer copy of their book so they can make money. And if I like a movie, I'd rather buy it new than used.

As for the PS4 being online all the time...I've not heard that. I heard MS was going that route with a discless system, but...not Sony. Unless they're going with a hard drive-less route.

 

[Sanji Himura]

As long as you're forced to buy a physical copy of something, though, it's quite problematic to go by just the definiton of a license.

Also, even then, a license is just a contract between two parties - a contract that you can't actually read before agreeing to it, but still. There's nothing that would state that you're prohibited from passing the license on yourself.

If a creditor can pass on the right to the debts of his client, why shouldn't I be able to pass on the right to use a given software to someone else?

There is some, and I stress some, justification for this. Have you looked at the Ace of Spades, the flap of the container or a Joker of your favorite deck of playing cards? In one of those three places, it will mention that when you opened the deck of playing cards, you are bound by a trademark license each time you buy the deck of playing cards. That means that while you have the physical copy of the deck, you can not copy and use any design that the playing card company used to make the cards for any purpose, even if the use was in the realm of 'Fair Use'.

Console makers and Publishers see used games as a blight because of their attitude to their intellectual property. They know that in order to make the most money off a title, they have to stifle the used games market. What better way to stifle that market than by a console's design? EA and Ubisoft have experimented with a lot of DRM on their PC games, up to and including upgrading hardware takes up a "license" for a game that you bought and paid for. What is stopping Sony from implementing the same type of DRM in Orbis? No one, and yet, people will buy these consoles for updating gaming.

 

[Sprite]

The issue I see for Sony as a console maker is this, make the console so that each game bought new it's tied to that console/PSN and the people buying games won't be able to afford to play/buy the games they want so sales will be hit hard. I buy most of my games new if they are ones I want straight off the bat from launch, this is very few games. I also buy used games for ones I want to play but can wait a while.

Allot of people play/buy allot of games and complete them in double time because developers put no effort into them at all EA, Ubi, Codemasters ect they churn out trash year upon year and some people buy them new and allot of people will wait. All that will happen if the developers pressure console makers into this, is that people will be more selective on games they buy because the cost of a new game is stupid compared to other forms of entertainment.

I personally take a very long time to play through games, I dont mind buying and keeping software titles tied to my PSN ect when I don't pay allot for it like Journey, it's a stunning game and well worth the price of admission, but because the price is low I don't feel I've been suckered into keeping it, if I had paid £40/£50 for a game and it wasn't nearly as good as Journey and I was tied to the game and couldn't get rid then I would be seriously annoyed.

Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo seriously need to think about what they're going to do in the next round of consoles because people are strapped for cash now and in the next few years even worse so cheaper and better developed games and I don't mind been linked to it, poor rehashed rubbish at a high price and I will be playing my old console games for years to come.

 

[Sanji Himura]

There is a balance beam between consumer rights and copyrights that must be threaded carefully, sprite, and the fulcrum is the US Congress. If Congress passes laws like SOPA and the DMCA that respect copyrights, then a little bit of our power is taken away from swaying Congress, and we have people, as a result, go terrorist to, how can I put this, "attack copyright holders", but when in reality they actually justify their worries and bribe, yes I said bribe, congress for more laws to be passed regulating what we can do with our product.

On the other hand, if Congress gets a spine and passes consumer rights laws, you get hollywood making films that destroy the White House(Independence Day), terrorists destroying certain buildings that is vital to American productivity, in other words films will be made, and politicians pockets will be lined to express their displeasure.

 

[Slash]

So if you a buy a game and it gets locked to a single PSN account, and you get banned, you wasted your money? This is so ****ing stupid.

 

[Sanji Himura]

No, I do not believe it was my intention to say that. Beyond the fact that there are rumors of "No Used Games" being implemented on both Sony and Microsoft's next-gen offerings, we know next to nothing about what kind of protections they could implement.

 

[tuga703]

If the used games 'feature' and no backward compatibility is true chances are instead of buying a PS 4/Orbis I will be investing the money on a gaming PC as only one PS3 game I own was bought new.
Console games are simply too expensive (£40-50) and seem to get progressively worse and hurried while PC gets fairly priced and innovative games such as Minecraft. Not only that but with PC I can play any game no matter how old without worrying about backwards compatibility.

 

[Luminis]

There is some, and I stress some, justification for this. Have you looked at the Ace of Spades, the flap of the container or a Joker of your favorite deck of playing cards? In one of those three places, it will mention that when you opened the deck of playing cards, you are bound by a trademark license each time you buy the deck of playing cards. That means that while you have the physical copy of the deck, you can not copy and use any design that the playing card company used to make the cards for any purpose, even if the use was in the realm of 'Fair Use'.

You are, however, not interacting in any way with the intelectual property of the company. You are just passing on the physical copy.

As long as the game doesn't work without the disk (which it shouldn't, anyways).

What is stopping Sony from implementing the same type of DRM in Orbis? No one, and yet, people will buy these consoles for updating gaming.

There's one thing that could very well stop them. Competition. If Microsoft desides to go with a relatively DRM-free console, as it is now, Sony could potentially lose enormous amounts of sales in both hardware and, subsequently, software.

 

[Sanji Himura]

You are, however, not interacting in any way with the intelectual property of the company. You are just passing on the physical copy.

As long as the game doesn't work without the disk (which it shouldn't, anyways).

You are right, however, if that physical copy of that game that you passed on doesn't work, Sony could be in a lot of hot water. They tried this stunt before when the PS3 got hyped up, remember, and it didn't fly then. It shouldn't fly now.

There's one thing that could very well stop them. Competition. If Microsoft desides to go with a relatively DRM-free console, as it is now, Sony could potentially lose enormous amounts of sales in both hardware and, subsequently, software.

Microsoft would be one of the first to jump in that bandwagon, and everyone knows it. Everything that MS does is proprietary on their systems, fixed HDD sizes, controller encryption, controllers being tied to Windows, ect. you can go on down the list. If anyone is going DRM free, then it would be Nintendo.

 

[Conza]

Look there's two scenarios really to be discussed in terms of 'piracy', basically, if its in the current set up and you buy games as physical copies, that physical copy should be a self contained version of software, and it should be able to be sold (the licence attached to the physical copy) to a game store, who will sell it to a different consumer.

Otherwise, if its all digital, well, you can't 'revoke' your licience for a credit to that... online store (actually thats not a bad idea, a reusable key or something), so basically all games will be cheaper initially, but you won't be able to trade them, so it balances out. Don't forget, new games will come out at a high price (maybe not $60, but 40-50ish), but won't hold that price forever, they'll be sales, and they'll go down as they get older, go platnium, the works.

Then there's the evil option 3. Where we still buy our physical copy, but are forced to register it, in some way, online, so its almost identical to a PC game... however it isn't cheaper, its limited by the console, and you can't trade it because its obviously been used. This idea sucks, even though I subscribe to in on a PC, but I do that because its justifable because the PC can be a better system, and the game was marginally cheaper to start with.

Anyway, Sony aren't making any announcements this year about the PS4/PSO so why all the rif-raf?

 

[Sanji Himura]

Look there's two scenarios really to be discussed in terms of 'piracy', basically, if its in the current set up and you buy games as physical copies, that physical copy should be a self contained version of software, and it should be able to be sold (the licence attached to the physical copy) to a game store, who will sell it to a different consumer.

Otherwise, if its all digital, well, you can't 'revoke' your licience for a credit to that... online store (actually thats not a bad idea, a reusable key or something), so basically all games will be cheaper initially, but you won't be able to trade them, so it balances out. Don't forget, new games will come out at a high price (maybe not $60, but 40-50ish), but won't hold that price forever, they'll be sales, and they'll go down as they get older, go platnium, the works.

Then there's the evil option 3. Where we still buy our physical copy, but are forced to register it, in some way, online, so its almost identical to a PC game... however it isn't cheaper, its limited by the console, and you can't trade it because its obviously been used. This idea sucks, even though I subscribe to in on a PC, but I do that because its justifable because the PC can be a better system, and the game was marginally cheaper to start with.

Anyway, Sony aren't making any announcements this year about the PS4/PSO so why all the rif-raf?

Sony did not say that they are not going to announce it this year, just not during E3. I would peg some form of announcement, if any, at the Tokyo Game Show.

 

[HKS racer]

If the used games 'feature' and no backward compatibility is true chances are instead of buying a PS 4/Orbis I will be investing the money on a gaming PC as only one PS3 game I own was bought new.
Console games are simply too expensive (£40-50) and seem to get progressively worse and hurried while PC gets fairly priced and innovative games such as Minecraft. Not only that but with PC I can play any game no matter how old without worrying about backwards compatibility.

This. I lolled hard at this rumor, I just hope for Sony it's not true or they'll have 0,0000 chances to remotely see a penny from me, and I owned all three previous consoles. I'm sure some people will buy that, even if Sony ask money for the air they breathe, but for me that mean: **** YOU SONY BIG TIMES. If that happens in a couple of years I can see me playing the new racing sims on a new PC and lol hard everyday at those Sony heads.

 

[Spagetti69]

Most ps3's are not backwards compatable though and there still selling.

 

[Slash]

Backwards compatibility would be nice yes, but like I said I won't be buying if used games are out of the question.

 

[E28]

I can see one problem with locking used games. For example, if I was a late adopter and there was a PS4 game I desperately wanted but it was 3 years old, how would I be able to obtain and play it? You walk into shops nowadays and if you see a 3 year old game, you'll only see it 2nd hand.

 

[bermudakid]

Backwards compatibility isn't important, If your looking to gwt a ps4 you probably already have the PS3. And most of the time backwards compatibitle hardware increases the overally cost of the new system.

 

[Ddrizle]

I can see one problem with locking used games. For example, if I was a late adopter and there was a PS4 game I desperately wanted but it was 3 years old, how would I be able to obtain and play it? You walk into shops nowadays and if you see a 3 year old game, you'll only see it 2nd hand.

Online shopping.