Report: New Sony Patent Blocks Second Hand Games - IGN
I am pissed if this really happens.
Printable View
Report: New Sony Patent Blocks Second Hand Games - IGN
I am pissed if this really happens.
There's a big difference between filing a patent application for something and actually implementing it in your next console.
Frankly, I don't see it happening if only because this whole thing feels like deja vu of six years ago or more before the PS3 was released when Sony had similar technology for limiting used sales at their disposal and they never actually used it despite the trout storm people tried to kick up about it.
Let's put it this way; if Sony did do this the PS4 would be DOA. Now granted, Sony have had a talent for being remarkably stupid since they started moving on from the PS2, but I don't think even they're that stupid.
No, this is not evidence of Sony "planning" anything. They patented a new technology, which does not mean that there are any current plans for that technology to be incorporated in the near future. It is equally plausible that it was patented to prevent competitors from using that technology (at least without royalties) or a myriad of other independent business reasons.
In short, until there's actual evidence of such a design being used in an actual console system, this is a non-story.
Whether or not it actually comes to pass, it's a really troutty thing to even suggest.
This is the first thing that popped into my head. That is, aside from the obvious "WHAT THE smurf."Quote:
There's also the issue of what happens should your console break and need replacing, or if you have more than one console. Will the games be linked to your PSN account, meaning they can still be used, or the console, meaning an entire new library of titles would need to be purchased?
Just become a PC gamer. All your problems solved. :D
They said the same thing about the PS3 before it came out. I can't count how many used games I've played on my PS3.
Right, because we all know PC games never run into DRM issues. :roll2Quote:
Originally Posted by Quinter Wonderland
Ignorance is bliss.
Worth pointing out that this is no different than what Steam already does. When you buy a game on Steam, the game is locked to your account.
I wonder how people will compare this with the fact that Steam is now making a console?Quote:
Originally Posted by Futan
Pffrt, who's buys Steam ga- oh, bugger.
Who knows but that made me realize that with this patent(did they receive it or just apply for it?), Sony could end up suing Valve over the Steambox. Hell, they might not even use it in the PS4 and are doing this just so they can sue Valve. :monster:Quote:
Originally Posted by DMKAI wonder how people will compare this with the fact that Steam is now making a console?Quote:
Originally Posted by Futan
EDIT: Then again, the Steambox probably won't even have an optical drive.
A patent means nothing. I have like 10 patents. And if time travel ever becomes popular, I'll be able to cash in on my patented Temporal Relocation Helmet.
Ohh poo all you console people will have to but your games brand new like us PC gamers. sux2bu
Sony's actually made a pretty decent push into digital distribution with the PSN store. I could see them feasibly trying to take on Steam-esque levels of deals with digital titles to offset this.
Used games is kind of a crappy market, to be honest.
I find this ironic since Sony's head office are the guys who traded in the most amount of games (brand new and sealed) when I worked in HMV. We had about 10 of them a week come in who'd make between 200 and 400 a week on trading in games.
Maybe so, but wouldn't this also prevent people from swapping and borrowing games? I do that with my brothers all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoeberto
Misleading title is misleading.
This is actually kinda cool - the 'perfect' CD key. Plus, Sony understands that people use their account when they go over a friend's house, which is why they already have PSN game sharing. They've lessened the amount of machines you can share with, but it's still pretty cool and one of the ways PlayStation's online digital service is better even than Steam.
I've never been much of a used game buyer, so this stuff never really bothers me.
Yeah, but you can deal with it a little better when they're practically giving away AAA games on PC for free.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMKA
Also there's the option to bypass the DRM with most games on PC if it's making the game unplayable for whatever reason. Will probably do that when SimCity comes out since it won't save your game unless you're online(wtf?).
Agreed with Bolivar, and you know what? I'm gonna play devil's advocate and say that this might actually be a smart idea. Imagine how many developers would develop for Sony if this was the case; it'd pretty be much free extra money for some of them because they wouldn't be getting gypped by way of used game sales. (what I mean is, people would have no choice but to buy games new, and even if the prices dropped, developers would still get the money)
Of course, there is the fact that DRM can be easily bypassed for the most part. There's also that the online services for the next systems will be most robust so they'd probably have a bigger selection of titles you could buy from them as well.
thqats a great news it would surely reduce much of the overcrowding .............
How would it?
I honestly don't see Sony putting any kind of technology into the PS4 that locks individual games to a single console. A lock out on used games would have to be across all consoles but if one simply did by themselves consumers would avoid it.
What Sony probably will do with PS4 however is lock games to your PSN and make it so that you must log into the PSN to play your games.
Didn't we have a thread similar to this before?
Anyway, I think that any company that decided to do this would only be smurfing themselves. I borrow plenty of games and buy used games semi-frequently, so actual implementation of this would just cause me to not buy that console. Secondly, it basically goes against the principle that the game is yours once you buy it and can do what you like with it as long as that isn't preventing others from enjoying the game.
I believe just about all modern video games are only giving you a license to play the game once you buy it, not ownership of a copy of the content on the disc.
Like FFXII?
Haha yeah it's exactly like the license board, quin
>>> What next? gotta buy special coins to play my games like in the arcade machines? lol..:luca:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
smurf sony..
The PS4 actually comes with a coin slot.
PC gamers 4 lyfe, yo.
And Nintendo, and Sega, and Microsoft, and every music distributor on the planet,and every movie distributor on the planet. You're kidding yourself if you think Sony is the only one to do this.Quote:
Originally Posted by black orb>>> What next? gotta buy special coins to play my games like in the arcade machines? lol..:luca:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
smurf sony..
Completely agree with telling all of those companies to smurf off, though. ;)
You don't have to buy their stuff. Entertainment isn't a right.
Telling people to smurf off when they annoy you is always fun, though.
Now smurf off. :colbert:
...Sorry, I couldn't resist. xD
You won't be able to buy used games anymore? Boo-smurfing-hoo. You know what a customer who buys used games is worth to a console or games developer? Nothing. Not a damned penny. They make absolutely nothing on used games. You may as well be pirating the game, because the only company making any money off of it is GameStop, and we could all do with less of that parasite in the industry.
Sony and Microsoft stand to lose next to nothing from crusading against used games. Some may argue sales will drop off due to the people who only pay the $60 price tag because they expect to beat it and sell it back to mitigate that cost, but that effect is likely to be negligible. Also, I doubt it causes people to stop playing games entirely. Instead, we will see a rise in the number of consumers who will wait six months for the price of new copies to drop. This will be a win for developers who will actually see profits from a game outside its launch window.
Even if Nintendo never implements such a restriction, both Sony and Microsoft have been tied to rumors. They're the big boys in the industry. The Wii U is very obviously not the second coming of the Wii, and Sony and Microsoft together will dictate the direction of the industry.
The only bummer about this is being able to share games with friends. Given that the games are tied to an account, features such as game sharing allow this to continue unhindered. It might not be as easy as just handing your friend a disk, but temporarily transferring the license from your account to your friend's isn't exactly a big deal.
Further, it doesn't even mean that used gaming is dead, it just means that the developers now have the tools to get a cut. I sincerely doubt that we're going to see a megalith like GameStop disappear overnight. What's more likely is that if you buy a used copy, your console is going to recognize it as a used copy and demand that you pay a fee (probably pro-rated based on the game's age) to reassign that copy's ID to your console. [Insert game developer of choice here] will be a lot less bummed that you bought their game used if you have to pay a $10 fee to play it.
Those developers might care when the people trading in games so they can buy new titles near launch, aka when the majority of a games lifetime sales take place, can't afford to buy as many games at launch anymore because they can't trade them in. They'll never make those new sales to the gamers looking for a deal unless they actually lower their prices (and considering the industry likes to continue to sell 2+ year old games at $30 or more, I have little faith in their ability to do that), but they will lose sales from those who actually want to get the game on day one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ouch!
You can't argue that the people buying used games are no better than pirates when the people who traded those games in in the first place play a pretty big role in supporting sales of brand new games through trading.
But most game publishers and developers never bother to think past the fact that a sale happens that they make no money off of and look at every aspect of the economic transaction taking place when someone trades in a game. They prefer to focus people's attention on the simple idea of a lost sale so they can play the victim and not only justify practices which are very much anti-consumer, but convince their own customers to justify it for them.
Not that I have a terrible problem with not being able to sell my games. I never have and I frequently use Steam. But Steam also likes to make up for it by having sales that are actually good deals so I end up picking up games I might not have and the developer gets their cut. Most of the industry hasn't quite caught onto the fact that that's a good idea now and then.
I love Ouch's "too poor to afford games at full price? Then you're a :bou::bou::bou::bou:" mentality. Very enjoyable to read.
The distributors and the publishers both need to stop being arseholes. A deal allowing a publisher to earn money from used sales would be easy to set up if they weren't all wankers.
Those who want to quote that sentence when ranting about any industry ever are more than welcome.
People still use consoles? :p
Gamestop isn't any more of a parasite than a second hand bookstore. Most other sorts of entertainment you can physically buy can easily be sold or given away to other people when you're done with it, but you don't exactly hear anyone calling this parasitic or have it brought up as something that damages the book industry. Why should consumers excuse game devs if they want to end this?
I cannot see sales drop-offs being significant. I'll give you all a few minutes to go and check Gamestop.com to see that most used games only sell for $5-10 cheaper than the new copy.
Honestly, this may end up being better for the consumer. Companies might be more willing to have frequent sales in order to extract value from every price level the customer is willing to pay.
I also think the increase in game prices may have a direct correlation with the rise of Gamestop. Game prices hit an all time low with the advent of the PlayStation. The new optical format was cheap to produce. We're still using optical formats, but the price went up to $50 on the next generation and then $60 with the current one (despite Microsoft using the same optical format as last generation). I don't think it's a coincidence that these years coincide with Babbages and EB Games coming about and eventually consolidating under one roof with Funcoland into what we now call Gamestop.
I'm confident that the big 3's pricing models would adapt with this change. I'm not sure if they need to, as one year old games are already selling for $20 and less New.
I really don't have a problem with services such as Steam limiting a game to one PC account or console. It makes, especially if you're dealing with a digital download.
But this is just ridiculous. Say I have ten games, and then my Playstation decides to crap out on me. That means I need to buy a new one, right? Do I need to buy all those ten games again? Insane.
If something like this is implemented, consumers will notice. I wouldn't be surprised if any consoles that utilize this die off very quickly.
Also, can someone change the topic of this thread? It's inaccurate and misleading.
Right now, if you have 10 PSN games, and your console dies, you can just redownload them on a new console. Right now, you can even give your PSN ID to your friends so they can download your game library, and Sony lets you do this with a few machines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar
I know that. :p but even then it is only two consoles and two handhelds per account.
But I was talking about games bought through retail that come on a disc, which is what the article was about
The article says it links the disk to your PSN account, not the PlayStation itself.
They cut the number of machines down to two recently actually. If you want to use it on another you have to go through some convoluted de-authorization process to take your account off of a machine. It was much better when the number was 7 machines and I'm not sure why they'd ever bother to change it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
Actually, all you have to do is click on 'deactivate console' on your machines setting, nothing convuluted about it in the slightest. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22They cut the number of machines down to two recently actually. If you want to use it on another you have to go through some convoluted de-authorization process to take your account off of a machine. It was much better when the number was 7 machines and I'm not sure why they'd ever bother to change it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
And the process to do it otherwise is easy enough if you don't have your machine. You can give Tech support your account information and they can clear all of your consoles in just a couple minutes.
And I can understand limiting the downloads to fewer systems, so that you don't have instances of a person buying the game once, yet seven people now have it on their systems. I don't think this was as harmful to them as they claim it was, but I can understand the reasoning, and don't think that this really hurts the consumer at all.
Unlike cutting out the used game market entirely, which I dislike massively. And I very rarely buy used games. Hell, most games I end up pre-ordering first. :p
If you machine dies or you're trying to deactivate your account on someone elses machine it's convoluted. And yes, I do consider having to go to a Sony website or call their tech support convoluted. There are better ways to handle multiple machines having your log in that would easily prevent someone from simply buying a game and sharing it with multiple consoles at the same time if they aren't there to actually use the thing. But I'm really not convinced that's a serious issue since Valve has never felt the need to do anything about it with Steam. More likely it's an over reaction to the fear of game sharing costing revenue more than anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoCracker
Frankly, when it comes to managing online accounts on multiple machines, most companies should really be following Valve's lead on the not inconveniencing the consumer end of things.
> Call
> Give account info
> Deactivated
Or
>Sign in on site (Same as PSN)
> Click tab to go to deactivation
> Click Deactivate all.
In no way do I see any of these as convoluted. Not saying better then Valves, but the website is like, a matter of minutes to do at most. :p
Yeah. I mean where else will you get games like Yakuza 3 and 4, Cross Edge, Blue Dragon, and all the other cool stuff that is only on consoles?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert
If you don't play any Japan-made games or quirky games, then maybe PC would be right for you, but until they start releasing stuff like this on PC, I will stick with consoles, thank you. :colbert:
I don't know my PSN password, so I have to jump through hoops to get it. I also see you've never tried calling Sony for support before. Or apparently any call center for that matter. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by NeoCracker
Plus, let's keep in mind that I'm comparing this to a system which doesn't require you to ever deactivate a machine. Compared to requiring the consumer to do literally nothing, everything else is more convoluted.
I actually worked for Sony Tech support. Its why I know the process is so easy. XDQuote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22I don't know my PSN password, so I have to jump through hoops to get it. I also see you've never tried calling Sony for support before. Or apparently any call center for that matter. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by NeoCracker
Calling them is only really a hassle if you end up having to wait, which really sucks. Or if you have a silly problem or a troutty tech support guy. (Mind you, I was awesome. ;P)
Doesn't change how easy the site is to use, or the fact it's your own damn fault for forgetting your Password. ;P
[QUOTE=Vivi22;3197201]I have to agree with NeoCracker. It takes all of 2 minutes to deactivate, tops.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoCracker
And ANYTHING is better than Valve, as long as Gabe Newell is still there. :colbert:
I'll assume you speak better english than the person I had to talk to that one time then. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by NeoCracker
As for the password, I accept no responsibility for forgetting a password you enter once and then will probably never use again.
I don't have problems with people who can't afford to buy games at full price. I just object to used-game models as a good way to drive down the costs. Used games are not the only source of cheap games, and I imagine that if something like this goes through, it becomes more feasible that through digital distribution models we will start to see availability of services like Steam directly on consoles. My point is that there is no incentive whatsoever right now for developers to cater to gamers who buy primarily used games. Any attempt they make to either force GameStop to give them a slice of the pie (by threatening to shut them down with new technology outright prohibiting used games sales) or be able to take an additional cut by forcing users to pay to unlock something is fine.
Also, I don't know where everyone else is getting their used games, but unless you're waiting a really long time to play game, the price drop off is not significant. Maybe if you're buying used copies from random sellers on eBay, but I've seen that go sour with bad copies too many times to trust it.
Mirage, as one who works in the publishing industry, used book stores are a damned parasite, especially in college textbook sales. I've seen the numbers. I've seen the cost of what goes into making a textbook. I can confirm there's a damned good reason those textbooks are so expensive, and a good chunk of it is because there is no major profit outside the initial release, much of which is due to used books sales. While I doubt it is the main factor, I would not be surprised that this is also the case for video games.
Prices have gone up on games because development costs have skyrocketed, but it certainly doesn't help that the proliferation of used games have meant that anything but a AAA franchise title is a risk for the developer. Unless the developer has a franchise with an established fanbase and reputation of quality, many consumers are perfectly happy to wait and see if that new game is worth the price point. Don't get me wrong, I get it. Shelling out $60 for something new and unproven is a big investment, but getting it used down the road doesn't do much of anything to encourage a developer to do anything other than sequels.
If developers could actually get legacy sales on titles, the additional revenue may be enough incentive to spurn some innovation. At the very least, it doesn't hurt. This is not exclusive to video games. There's a reason that the entertainment industry churns out sequels over new material, and as much as we like to rail on them for it, as consumers, a lot of the blame falls on us. They're only making what we consistently buy. If they made enough money on experimental new titles, they'd be making more of them.
To Quin's point: developers and publishers aren't the only ones who need to be more reasonable. Consumers do too. It goes both ways, and too often consumers have an attitude of entitlement when it comes to media of all forms. I support affordable platforms that lead us in the right direction across all media: Netflix, Spotify, Steam, etc. I'm not perfect, I still pirate a bit (cable is really the last bastion that won't move the smurf on from their antiquated models), but I do my best to put my money where my mouth is and support content creators. I'd love for them to ditch money-grubbing middle-men, but those money-grubbing middle-men are also the ones who have the capital to throw in for the production values I appreciate.
Also Vivi22, that's absurd. Choose a password you won't forget.
Not really true. Every sale of a cheap used game is a potential long term customer that may enjoy that used game enough to want your next one when it comes out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ouch!
And yet the irony here is that book publishers seem to be making a bigger push at selling less expensive digital copies than the people who work in a medium which is digital by definition. Just look at the state of console digital sales. I've noticed Sony making a more pronounced effort in the last year or so to get digital releases on the Playstation store when games come out, but that still puts them what? More than half a decade behind Steam and the PC market in general? To say nothing of other platforms like smart phones which have had this stuff figured out for years as well. It's kind of sad really, since a solution that can satisfy both publishers and consumers is right there. And it's even sadder if you're falling behind books when it comes to keeping up with current technology.Quote:
Mirage, as one who works in the publishing industry, used book stores are a damned parasite, especially in college textbook sales. I've seen the numbers. I've seen the cost of what goes into making a textbook. I can confirm there's a damned good reason those textbooks are so expensive, and a good chunk of it is because there is no major profit outside the initial release, much of which is due to used books sales. While I doubt it is the main factor, I would not be surprised that this is also the case for video games.
It's really not that absurd when you consider how many passwords I have, including unique variations on the same basic password, which I already remember. Forgive me for not remembering one password that I haven't had to enter in three years. It's actually absurd that you think forgetting it under those circumstances is so unheard of.Quote:
Also Vivi22, that's absurd. Choose a password you won't forget.
Actually, Sony still make money from the sales of used games. I only found this out about a couple of days ago when reading Gamasutra. Microsoft and Nintendo make money from the sales of games for their consoles, too, even when used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ouch!
Developers, though, I'm pretty sure they get sod all.
So, then they'd sell the rest on the ps store.......and make everything expensive.
Potentially, but I would argue that constitutes a relatively small market not fiscally worth pursuing when there are more financially viable alternatives. It would be interesting to see the real numbers on it, but in my anecdotal experience, people who buy used games tend to almost exclusively buy used for financial reasons. It does not tend to stimulate brand loyalty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22
There's a fundamental difference between consoles and smart phones/PCs, though. The PS3 and Xbox 360 launched well before the proliferation of digital distribution models, and they were not designed to accomodate this. Typically significant features like that roll out with new console generations. I imagine we'll see a big push toward it when the next consoles launch. But consoles are simply not designed to make big changes quickly. Digital distribution is absolutely the future, but to complain about this not coming sooner is to fundamentally ignore the limitations of consoles.Quote:
And yet the irony here is that book publishers seem to be making a bigger push at selling less expensive digital copies than the people who work in a medium which is digital by definition. Just look at the state of console digital sales. I've noticed Sony making a more pronounced effort in the last year or so to get digital releases on the Playstation store when games come out, but that still puts them what? More than half a decade behind Steam and the PC market in general? To say nothing of other platforms like smart phones which have had this stuff figured out for years as well. It's kind of sad really, since a solution that can satisfy both publishers and consumers is right there. And it's even sadder if you're falling behind books when it comes to keeping up with current technology.
You misunderstand. I'm not suggesting it's absurd that you forgot. I'm suggesting it's absurd to insist that Sony's system is at fault or too complicated because of your decisions. I don't remember my exact password for that log-in either, but I can successfully guess it because I know it's one of three passwords I tend to use for that sort of thing.Quote:
It's really not that absurd when you consider how many passwords I have, including unique variations on the same basic password, which I already remember. Forgive me for not remembering one password that I haven't had to enter in three years. It's actually absurd that you think forgetting it under those circumstances is so unheard of.
Also to BoB's point: did not know. That makes sense given that it's typically the console developer who controls deals with retailers rather than individual game developers. They would be able to force a point in a contract that gives them a cut of all sales on products licensed for their consoles. The point still remains that there are ramifications then for games developed by third parties which make up... a majority of the games in the world. This might also explain why Nintendo--as a heavily first-party developer console--has not pushed in this direction (and potentially why their games have been cheaper).
My understanding is that it doesn't matter if Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft developed the game or not. They still get a cut of all pre-owned game sales.
I meant more that it is likely that Nintendo feels less pressure from third party developers to restrict used games sales because they're primarily first-party.
Oh, right. Yeah, I agree.