Slashdot Mirror
Sony May Try To Stop PS3 Game Resales
Next Generation reports on Sony's hopes that it will be able to prevent the resale of PS3 games. The article argues that it is unlikely they'll succeed in this goal. From the article: "One expert in retail law told Next-Gen.Biz, 'Sony can theoretically sell a license to play the game, but the user would have to acknowledge acceptance of the license. You've seen this when you install software on a PC. I'm not sure that the license agreement is enforceable if the licensee doesn't agree to it. Also, even if the agreement is enforceable, it's hard to preclude subsequent sale of the disc. The consumer could theoretically agree that he doesn't own the right to transfer his license, but why couldn't he sell the medium that held the license (the disc)? Sony can't enforce the agreement against a third party, as it lacks privity with the third party.'"
How many reasons do I now have to not buy a PS3?
If you haven't foed me yet, what are you waiting for?
Careful, or the RIAA will catch wind of this and will try to enforce something similar.
Wait a sec...
I'm seeing a future, a few years from now, where columnists looks back at what Sony did in 2006 and create laundry lists of "how to implement the largest-scale failure in the history of video games."
Sony:
/. for months.
Do you really hate your customers *that* much?
Truth be told, I am really, really hoping that they try to do this. The consumer backlash and probably subsequent lawsuits over everything from eBay sales to EB Games/Gamestop sales will provide lots of ripe discussion material on
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
make people FAT, stupid, violent, anit-social, and ...and.....Anti American!!
...Sony has made so many simultaneously self-serving and self-defeating moves in the last year or two that it may be true.
1. Because
2. They
3. Suck
Sony seems to think that we're LUCKY to get games for their overpriced console. With their statements about how people would buy it even with no games, and now this garbage?
Sony thinks they're too good for us.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
"According to a UK news source" the article claims. This is fit for the tabloids. I guess thats why its posted by Zonk.
...the socalled first sale doctrine. I think this sums it up: "US copyright case law supports that consumers cannot make copies of computer programs contrary to a license, but may resell what they own. This however is conflicting with both section 117 and 109, and the case law itself is conflicting depending on which circuit the case was heard in."
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers ...
Ka-BLAM. - The sound of Sony falling to dust.
Really, truly, why would Sony do this?
I mean, I heard rumours of something similar a while back. They were going to try and make a disc you buy to only be able to play on a single system. No more copying, no more renting, no more lending.
Hell, what happens to me when my PS3 goes the same way as my PS2 and I need to get a new one? Better yet, what happens when they release a new slimmer version and suddenly I'm not able to play anymore?
Mind you, this may not be the case with this new system of theirs, but why kill the second hand market like this? I can't remember the last time I bought a game brand new. Game Boy Advance and Game Cube both, nearly all my games are second hand copies. Why? Because not only are they cheaper, but because it's sometimes harder to find games new after they're released. Especially the rare gems.
On top of the fact that used games would be near impossible, what will they do for rentals? I'm certainly not going to go fork out $80 (CDN) for a new game that I've never tried. I want to go out and rent it, and if it is worth it, sure I'll pick up copy. "Greatest Hits" games hardly count, because they are simply cheaper because they've been out longer, and a few people liked them.
If they do this, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot. There won't be a PS3 in my place (mind you, the PS2 belongs to the finacee), and I guarantee there won't be one in many of the living rooms I know of.
I doubt this is likely and is just old news resurfacing. Not only if Sony implemented this strategy would resale businesses have problems, but renting games would cease to exist (for the PS3, at least). This would definately cause troubles for Sony as customers could not try before they buy or even enjoy a weekend of a party game. Blockbuster, Gamestop, et all, would pull out all stakes to prevent this if this were real.
o nt-play-used-games/
http://www.joystiq.com/2005/11/08/playstation-3-w
The evidence for this is an unamed "UK news source, citing retail contacts." And a Sony patent on "technology which would tie a piece of software to an individual piece of hardware." Also, Sony isn't commenting on this story.
But the article also points out how technological enforcement would be difficult, and how such a move would completely piss off both retailers and consumers.
I can't see Sony actually doing this, I really don't think it makes a lot of business sense. But then, I never thought they would charge $600 for a PS3.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
What will this do to the game rental market? (Does Blockbuster still rent games?)
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
How will they enforce a contract with a nine year old?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Exec 1: This foot shotgun isn't letting us shoot ourselves in the feet thoroughly enough!
Exec 2: Prepare...the foot cannon!
so sony is selling you a license to play the game, but you still have to buy the game??? is this not contradictory?
It's looking like they're trying to out-do Atari's spectacular flameout back in the last downturn in the games industry.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
When I go to blockbuster, and I pay the man $5 for my PS2 game, I can't re-sell it.
What exactly is preventing sony from adopting the same business model? As long as they're up front about the fact it's not a sale, I don't see where this is legally questionable. Better not try to charge $50 per 'rental' though. I'm pretty sure people wouldn't be so happy about that.
But, hey, the new rules of gaming media are
- Is it about Sony?
- Does it make Sony look bad?
If so, then there is no step 3. The rumor must be right, and it's getting printed on Slashdot.Come on man, post already. We're waiting.
So all I have to do to get around this is let the neighbor kid (who is too young to enter into any sort of legally binding contract) play all of my games first, right?
If this is true, its another nail in Sony's coffin. I mean, from their entirely too expensive system, to their overhyped Blu-ray support, console delays, and problems with their "new" game controllers (which look shockingly like every other game controller they offered), if Sony is hoping to prevent resales of their games, then I would firmly have to refuse to buy the PS3.
Sony's problem is, and will continue to be, the fact they are both a hardware manufacture that also publishes game titles, movies and music. Sony keeps insiting that they need to protect their IP in games, movies and music with their hardware, so they have never done things right.
From their first Digital Music players that used proprietary music formats and software, rootkit fiasco, to their overly portected PSP and now the PS3, Sony is doing everything in their power to enusre that customers will never really enjoy the Sony experience, just tolerate all their DRM and protections schemes enough for a few minutes of diversion. The problem is, will people keep tolerating this?
The PS3 will be Sony's make it or break it entry into the video game consoles. The original PS and PS2 were hugely successful simply because they didn't try to force DRM and other copyright protection schemes on people (or, at least, they were easy to circumvent). The wild lack of success of the PSP and the backlash people are having over the PS3 might cause Sony to lose their grip on the video game market.
While I would never have guessed that a company like Sony could fail in their efforts after 2 big game console successes, I will have to admit that the PS3 might be their biggest mistake yet if they keep going forward with ideas and plans like this.
This could be just speculation or unfounded rumours designed to bring more discreditation to Sony, but if there is a smidgen of truth, Nintendo's Wii looks like it might be the ONLY next generation console I will put my money into.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
but in the past whenever people would talk about Sony wanting to tie games to individual consoles they'd always get modded troll.
the warnings were there. just like with this blu-ray downsampling BS.
I hope they can do this. It would be a nice f**k you to EB Games and Gamestop, who buy games from unknowing kids for pennies on the dollar and resell for major profit.
They talk a lot about license transfers in the article but don't go into detail about how Sony wants to tie particular pieces of software to a particular PS3 unit. This seems like it would only be enforceable if both the new and used purchasers' PS3s are connected to the Internet. If so, it would mean that anyone wanting to use their PS3 for online gaming would be restricted to buying only brand new games. It would also probably result in people buying only single player/local multiplayer games and ignoring the Internet altogether.
If game publishers can't make money in the current environment, then that's just too damn bad. Maybe, someday, they'll figure out that selling a million units at $20 a piece is better than selling 200,000 units at $50 a piece. Forcing these kinds of restrictions on people will affect the first sale as much as the subsequent used sales.
Offcourse Sony doesn't like the second hand trade. I own a PSP and recently bought two games for it. Both second hand from the dutch FreeRecordShop store. 12.50 was about all I was willing to spend for Midnight Club 3.
For that money it is a nice game. For full price (wich it still retails for) it is a piece of crap. The other Fired Up is a piece of crap at 12.50 but if I bought it at full price I would have been really upset. Now I can deal with it.
But offcourse sony ain't making any money of me. Well though shit. I bought GTA at full price and some other games and frankly only GTA was worth it.
PRODUCE GAMES THAT ARE WORTH FULL PRICE and people will pay for it. I do. Just that so few games are worth it.
If this story is true and not another piece of rumor fluffed up to be news by zonk then Sony really seems determined to dig its own grave. STOP UPSETTING PAYING CUSTOMERS!
Geez.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
at least in California how can minors enter into a legally binding agreement?
Since a couple of weeks, and especially since E3 show, there are lots of FUD about the PS3 and Sony. I am not a Sony zealot, I don't have any console from them. But honnestly, do you feel like this news is something more than F.U.D. coming Microsoft or Nintendo.
I don't feel like an anonymous guy repeating stuff heard from a UK retailer is something like a trusted source. Sounds more like Microsoft try to kill the PS3 beast before it's awaken...
RIP Slashdot. I used to love you. dead account - but slashdot wont let me delete it.
Little Timmy drops the disk in. "You must agree to play the game." Timmy agrees. Timmy is 8. He can't sign a (legally binding) contract. His parents didn't sign the contract. The game lets him play anyhow -- he said yes. Timmy grows up and does not like Pokemon anymore and sells the disk at his family's garage sale.
Sue a kid over a non-enforcable contract? Right. What is sony going to do, make a parent press "yes" to play the game so it is enforcable? While it might be a nice move to discourage GTA lawsuits, it is equally stupid since a kid could, if he made some cash mowing lawns, buy the game himself.
Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
Nintendo tried this ages ago. If you read the first page of almost every game manual, you see a statement saying that you cannot even *rent* the game!
However, thanks to the "Blockbuster" exemption in copyright law, there's a legal definition for what is, in essence, a video game (e.g. a game that's played only on something like a console) that allows you to rent out the game.
Now, IANAL, but I believe the same "Blockbuster" exception in US Copyright law would have to apply to these games, as well. I'm not sure how much they can abridge your rights (although, God knows, they certainly love to *try*) via these stupid EULAs.
In other words, and you should consult a lawyer before relying on this as fact, it's probably just a stupid "scarecrow" license.
This is Sony. They're one of only a few companies to have been forced to admit that their EULA was unconscionable. Please join me in saying:
*** SCREW YOU, SONY! ***
I won't put up with that kind of crap from any company. In fact, I will do whatever I can to help screw over companies like that, whether it's badmouthing their products, boycotting them, etc. Sure, I'm just some nobody, but the more nobodies out there that are pissed-off at you, the more it's going to reflect on your bottom line, especially that monetary value your accountant lablels "goodwill."
Frankly, I don't see how something like "goodwill" can have a dollar (or yen, or euro) sign next to it, but I guess that's the only way they can get you to pay attention to it, like you're supposed to.
Of digging itself into the ground. And then drilling deeper, all the way until they smell feet.
I do more gaming on my PC anyway, and I can make a PC now to do what a PS3 will do later, for about the same price and without the lunacy. Does Nintendo and Microsoft have agents working in the higher levels of Sony to kill the company? I feel like I'm watching Paramount's strenuous efforts to bury Star Trek all over again.
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
Along with a clause disallowing secondhand sale of the game, the EULA will debut the new "no-landfill" clause.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
A hardware-software locking scheme would also stop the big movie/game rental chains (such as Blockbuster, Hastings, etc.) from renting PS3 games. This could be a big blow to the industry, I think, given how many copies of the games the rental chains end up buying, and also that a lot of people will try renting a game for the short run before they decide to shell out the dough to buy it.
Ah, just how stupid can Sony be? I'm reminded of that old Einstein quote about how only two things were infinite--the universe, and human stupidity--and he wasn't sure about the first one of those.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
this whole speculation about Sony doing this was discussed month ago, it's the result of some overzealous reporters reading too far into some obscure sony patents.
I see exactly what this is. Sony sees that when a game is resold they make 0$, that is unacceptable. I mean c'mon...
Remember, in relation to a $600 console a $60 game is "still pretty cheap".
Have some sympathy here, they're just trying to eek out a modest living with what technology they can scrap together... right?
I would try to give an analogy here, but every one that easily comes to mind involves things that I think would get me banned or that only happen to people in prison related stories on Fark.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
Very clever hiding the truth behind two layers of news stories - the original story is about how industry experts doubt this claim (which comes from an unnamed UK source) is true! So why the anti-Sony spin when the original story is about how people think there's no way Sony would do this and they've not even said they would?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
While I am by no means a fan of Microsoft, or WinXP, or it's EULA, there is a big difference between an OS that you will be using until it's time to upgrade (usually years) and a game you're gonna play for a while and then forget about. Most games out there you'll get about 100 hours use from, TOPS. I get more use than that from XP in a couple weeks.
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
But didn't we already have a bitchfest over this issue, and Sony revealed that this was not going to happen?
.... Oh nevermind, don't let me get in the way of another "$ONY IS TEH EVIL" bashing article.
While there is the possiblity they could do this, it would be stupid for Sony to do so and risk having the legalality of EULAs questioned. Sony is already on tricky ground regarding the PS3(i.e. price, dropped features, etc), so it would be a very bad thing to alienate their customers.
I've lost count too and certainly won't be the first in line to buy a PS3. Sony does seem to be going out of their way to sink the PS3 launch and by extension the rest of their business. There's still time to make it all work, but if even some of these stories are true, they're going to need some major internal shake up to get back on track. It's too bad that this sort of thing nearly always happens to market leaders who become overconfident and arrogant. At this rate, the sound that Sony makes when it falls will be deafening!
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
It won't happen. And if it does, it won't matter.
I've always loved how insular Slashdot is. All your combined outrage will barely make a dent.
Most people buying these games and systems won't have a clue, and won't care. "Oooo! Game! Me want pretty!" Game open, game inserted, game played. If Sony is successful in implementing this, and all your video game stores (with the exception of the big ones) go tits-up because they can't sell used games, then people will finally start to notice. Do you honestly think most of the millions and millions of gamers out there will notice before they bring that first game in to sell it? Or until they realize they can't buy used PS3 games?
Nope. Sony will be hurt more by their high price point than this. Even then, they'll still sell a ton. Why? Because it's Christmas and parents are wimps when their kids cry that they want the newest toy. Add in that gamers are older and have their own disposable income, and they'll justify the price to themselves. "Oh, it's a Blu-ray drive, those cost a fortune! Heck, I'm practically stealing it at this price!"
Of course, I'm primarily a PC gamer, who has little use for online multiplayer anything, and prefers the Gamecube over the other current-gen systems. Besides, the only next-gen system that interests me in the slightest is the Wii. I'm not a Nintendo fanboy but they're the only company that's actually piqued my interest at all. Sony and MS seem to lack the ability to realize that whatever fantastic hardware they tout, it'll be obsolete 6 months later when PCs once again surpass it.
Absolutely correct. With First Sale Doctrine, inability of minors to sign contracts, the highly lucrative accessories market owned by Gamestop and others who sell used games, etc., there's no way this is true.
Where would the licence agreement happen? Everytime you turn the game on it asks you if you agree to the licence. Then turn the system off and sell it, you didn't agree to the licence that last time now did you.
-tgpo
Make a super expensive machine... make it not-that-much more powerful than your competition, but make it a lot more expensive by tacking on a proprietary disk format no-one wants. Offer no online services, then change your mind at the last minute and promise them. Lose your exclusivity agreement on GTA (GTA francise has sold lots of Sony products). Diss the press at E3. Not to mention controversy about Sony faking game footage, and the whole unrelated but nasty issue of rootkits on CDs... now they want to restrict people from re-selling or trading their games?
Seriously, the PS3 better be a sweet machine, because Sony is doing everything wrong marketing wise. Even if a lot of this is rumors and FUD, Sony is big enough to have the PR engine to deal with this properly!
Dear Sony:
You need to stop pulling the trigger on that gun pointed at your foot. You've burned through the entire magazine, and it's time to reload.
Got to get myself ready. Am I allowed to see a PS3 add without having to license one? Have to be careful about them free newspaper I get at the train station.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
and I've got the magic marker to prove it.
Information just wants to be free.
Most people only budget a specific amount per year for gaming.
If they budget $150, that can be 2 x 75$ new games, or 5 x $30 games, etc.
If the can sell games, they can buy 2 x $75 new, sell both for 2 x $30, and buy another new game for $60. All adds up to $150.
Not allowing resales will reduce the number of new games sold, and definitely kill any future PS3 to PS4 upgrades as no one will buy old consoles without games. Sony will have to cut prices if it wants to sell more games. It will also erode the PS2->PS3 upgrades as many people will not want PS3 lock in.
Does anyone know of another product where this has been profitable beyond year one?
If true, such a move would be a massive boost for publishers and developers which do not profit from the lucrative and damaging retail trade in used games.
No, this article is not biased at all. Back it up, buttercup. Some points the author might want to consider:
1. People selling used games often use the money to purchase new games.
2. Used games only compete on price. Lower prices on new games will make used games undesirable.
3. Used games can stimulate interest in existing franchises, resulting in sales of new games.
4. Retailers rely on used games in order to stay profitable. Without used games retailers will have to raise prices, resulting in fewer sales and lost profits to publishers.
5. Customer enmity is far more damaging than used games.
In fact, many publishers are furious that they have to spend support money on consumers who have not actually contributed a dime to the company's coffers.
Yeah, yeah. Computer manufacturers are furious that consumers who have not actually contributed a dime to the companies' coffers are downloading specs for their motherboards. Wa-wa. This is a red herring. Companies have no obligation to support games for free. If they think it is a good idea, require registration and only support registered individuals. Or better yet, charge for support; problem solved. (Who the hell needs support for a freakin' console game in the first place?) Hell, I'm furious that they are charging me for support I will never need with the purchase of every new game!
. . . to my DRM locked down, $800.00, unable to resell games, every-title-is-a-remake, HDMI-required for HD playback console.
With all the bloody restrictions they should be paying me to take the damn thing.
Seriously; wasn't that the "promise" of all these locked down DRM systems? Hardware free, software as a service, copy protection means that companies can easily recoup their investment.
I couldn't imagine _ever_ buying one of these. It would _really_ have to blow me away.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
I'm genuinely worried for Sony. This appears to be a desperate move. It's hard to see where the PS3 will fit in. It looks to be a slightly better and more expensive XBOX 360. The Nintendo era is upon us once again. :-)
The laughs just keep coming.
There has to be at least one person in a position of some power within Sony that constantly has his jaw on the floor. Unfortunately, with his jaw always on the floor, he can't speak his objections out loud.
That's why companies like the idea of online games. You are pretty much stuck with the game, since they generally aren't easily transferable...not only that, but quite a few games come with free play time (3 months free, etc)...this makes resale of these games less profitable...
... the best reason to buy an XBox 360.
That only the people who follow the industry (hardcore gamers or not) are the only people aware of all the reasons not to buy the PS3. However, Sony will still these overpriced piece of hardware like hotcakes. Having a PS3 will be more like a status symbol, and we're in a society where "keeping up with the Jones" is a major driver.
Long live great games (regardless of the console) and competition (because it benefits us).
Dated November 2005 - The Death of Used Game Sales? posted our friend, Zonk. "The Inquirer has an interesting piece about a new Sony Patent on a technology that may possible prevent DVD disc media users from using their purchased disks in other machines after they have used them on a specific reader.
Dated November 2005 - Rumor: PlayStation 3s won't play borrowed, used, or rented games - SCEE PR manger Jennie Kong blasted the rumor as " false speculation." "PlayStation 3 software will not be copy protected to a single machine but will be playable on any PlayStation 3 console," she told the Guardian.
Wow, is it me or Sony is doing all the wrong moves lately ?
I'm beginning to think they're relying too much on their reputation now. When the 360 came out, I thought I'd just wait for the PS3 since I loved the PS2/PSOne so much
but now.... I think I'm gonna jump on the Wii bandwagon or possibly the 360.
If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
Zonk is an obvious Nintendo fanboy.
I disagree. It seems clear to me that Zonk is an obvious XBox fanboy. Zonk's promotion of Nintendo has been half-hearted, and only a recent development-- Zonk only really began pushing for Nintendo after Peter Moore's E3 declaration that Microsoft considered Nintendo an ally. Before Microsoft invented the "Wii60" party line, Zonk was not nearly so enthusiastic, and pretty much only printed pro-Nintendo stuff when the games.slashdot reader base (which is notably pro-Nintendo, in my opinion with good reason) started yelling so hard he couldn't ignore them anymore.
I thus conclude that Zonk is an exclusively XBox fanboy who also occasionally sees Nintendo favorably because Microsoft tells him to, and because he views Nintendo as an ally in the fight against Sony.
... once certain amount of copies have been sold.
Sad. But possible.
I know, I know... then it opens the door for piracy, hacking, etc.
Sony to make it illegal to sell second hand PS3 games
Here's a quote from the end of the article:
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Nintendo has the best idea for game sales in years with the Wii. Different price-points. Smaller games == smaller price. Mega-hits == normal price. Downloads == (?) but most likely reasonable/free/promotions.
/. said I was a fanboy and soooo wrong... well we shall see real soon, my guess is that I was pretty damn close to right on the money.
Used games are about the only majorly profitable area for places like EB/Gamestop. So this move will only help push away customers and retailers. This is a sinking ship, and FTR about a year ago at this time when I jumped ship from working with Sony and claimed that they were going downhill quick and everyone here on
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
Sony, which is refusing to comment on the story, does have a patent on technology which would tie a piece of software to an individual piece of hardware.
I remember reading about this a while back (possibly on slashdot?). IIRC, the technology they were talking about here had something to do with putting a small writeable sector on the disc that, once inserted into a PS3, would be written with an encryption code of some sort that tied it to the serial number of the console, or the processor, something like that. Thus, any attempt to play the disc on another console would be met with failure. I could be remembering this wrong though.
fuck off
Sony are acting like a company that own the market and can dictate whatever terms they want. Remind me, which Sony products are so awesome that I have to buy them and submit to these terms? It's not the their games consoles (portable or not I prefer Nintendo), or their TVs (Samsung make better) or their stereos (who'd buy a Sony?), or their portable audio players (I love my iPod), or their cameras (Canon for me), or their laptops (Apple again), or their memory sticks (I tend to use SD cards), or their crippl(ed|ing) audio CDs (somehow they don't seem to publish music I like), or even their headphones (I'm happy with my Sennheisers).
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
This would also seem to wipe out the rental market for PS3 games as well, unless Sony creates special copies of those. But of course pre-rented games are sold used all the time as well, so that wouldn't work.
If Sony wants to cut out the rental market, the try before you buy approach wouldn't work. More people would tend to wait for magazine reviews instead of buying the game on impulse. If you can't try it yourself, and you can't resell it if you get bored with it, who's gonna pay $60 for video games unless they're truly AAA titles with exremely high ratings?
about selling pre-packed shrink-wrapped apps seperatly. I believe it had to do with Adobe's suite, people would buy the box with the other included Adobe apps, only keep the disc for what they needed, and sold the rest off. Adobe bitched but I believe lost the case as the software wasn't being used on more than 1 machine at the same time.
Same with the deal here. Just like with Windows, you can re-sell YOUR copy you PURCHASED the lisense for, but if you do, you must remove any copy on your machine. That lisense is valid for one install running on one computer at that time. So if you remove it (just like those people who removed the pre-installed windows and said they didn't agree with the EULA), you can then sell your phyiscal meadium + lisense since it is no longer in use.
The only reason I see sony wouldn't agree with this (which, btw, I take the article with a grain of salt) would have to do with the whole mod chip/HD loader scene. That way you couldn't buy a copy, make a copy of the disc (though making a copy of a BluRay wouldn't really be worth it vs just buying a copy of the real deal yourself) and using a mod chip, or dumping it to a hard drive and playing it that way (HD Loader)... and selling the copy to a friend for 50%~75% of the price. That's about the only thing I could even think of.
I can't see Sony actually doing this, I really don't think it makes a lot of business sense. But then, I never thought they would charge $600 for a PS3.
Well then both statements can make sense as the base Sony model is $500, not $600 - in fact you are worse off with the $600 model as all you are doing is supporting HDMI the spec with no additional functionality in terms of video output.
As for the source from the UK, who knows how many 360 astroturfers may be implanted there... "reatial contacts" likley means "360 fanatic working in a video game store".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Hell, I'd rather they just superglue the disc slot shut and sell it to me as the 'PSMGS4'. In fact, just image the disc to the HDD and don't even bother including the Blu-Ray drive to save me a few quid! :p
You must think in Russian.
hm. The article notes that this is good for producers, and bad for retailers, but seems to miss the consumer side. If I can't resell a game, it isn't worth as much to me... so I'm less likely to buy it. Ultimately everyone will loose out. Didn't Japan try to ban the resale of consumer electronics not so long ago? What happened to that?
There's still a lot of people who want to buy a PS3. Why?
This is the same site that falsely announced that the base-model PSP woul have wired controllers and a non-upgradable hard drive:e .jsp?articleId=20060513133719562032§ionId=1006
http://www.gamesradar.com/gb/ps3/game/news/articl
I know it's probably totally unreasonable to ask Slashdot to "consider the source" but GamesRadar has a reputation of inaccuray and sensationalism.
Game specialty stores still account for over 25% of US sales of video games, systems and accessories. They are also successful in large part because of used games. This move would essentially hamstring them and either lead to them dropping Sony product from their stores or just going out of business.
I know its not a console, but doesnt Steam basically achieve with this CD Copys of Half Life 2 etc?
I got Half Life 2 from an ATI voucher, so dont know if it locks to your account, but I seem to recall Half life 1 doing that when steam was introduced.
I'll start to suspect that JVC & Hitachi have successfully planted sleeper operatives within Sony to bring it to its knees.
"Let's refuse to license our VCR technology, no one is ever going to buy that VHS crap."
"Let's install software to fuck up the computers of our customers, no one will ever know."
"Let's take away the one incentive people have to buy expensive titles for our consoles, I know some people plan to sell games after they've beaten them but they'll keep paying $69.95 for titles that they're stuck with."
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Are they going to use a rootkit to enforce it? That's ludicrous that anybody actually cares if this preposterous scheme actually goes through, except big resellers. No sane court of law will find me guilty of selling ps3 games to my next-door neighbor.
Thank you sir, for raising the level of discourse on this topic. Your intellect is a shining light in the darkness of mediocrity, and I think we can all agree that we are bettered by your contribution. Applause.
;)
I like feeding trolls, apparently. I learned something about myself today.
Clearly I forgot to equip my +5 Codpiece of Karma.
"If true, such a move would be a massive boost for publishers and developers which do not profit from the lucrative and damaging retail trade in used games. In fact, many publishers are furious that they have to spend support money on consumers who have not actually contributed a dime to the company's coffers."
This is completely untrue. There are so many people that buy a game because they can play for a while and then sell it on ebay. If you get the game on sale sometimes you can even make money doing this. How many of these people wouldn't buy any but the best games if they couldn't do this? Alot. Where there's a will there's a way. If Sony does this, then it will be the biggest contributor I've seen to online piracy since the RIAA started advertising Napster. Before they got into the act none of the lamers out there were even on napster. It so bizarre. People have been selling used books since the beginning of time, what are you supposed to do throw them out?
I think they can. Try selling you copy of Windows XP. Same thing, it's just software, but it's illegal to resell a used copy of XP. Then there's XP's product activation, which ensures that the person who bought the used copy has to crack it or they can't even use it after the initial two-week period. Sony's patent on tying the game software to individual consoles amounts to the same thing. So if Microsoft has been getting away with this for years with their OS, why can't Sony with their games?
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
Not sure is he? Sad times...
I don't know what's worse: this guy being considered an 'expert in retail law'
or...
The nagging suspicion that, for all I know, the "content industry" really *has worked it so that you no longer have to agree to a license for it to be enforceable upon you...
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
What is it with this belief that second hand sales causes a significant cost to the bottom line of the console manufacturers? And they seem to be the only ones who care. The developers certainly don't. We all know that the bulk of our income is from sales in the first few weeks.
Nobody has done any studies on this. There's no evidence that those who buy used games would or would not have bought a full priced game had the used game not been available. No evidence that console sales are or are not influenced by the availability of second hand games. No evidence of anything.
And why is it only meant to be the games industry that suffers? Why does the motor industry not complain about the harm the second hand car industry is doing to their business? Because they know it does them no harm. In fact, they know they benefit from it.
I used to be quite excited about the PS3. Now I won't be getting one at all. Jack up the price and reduce the rights that go with it? To hell with them.
If it's true, then perhaps Sony will include a "burning" laser in their console, with a limited range, to burn a blank portion of a BluRay disc that includes the serial code, registration information including address and name, and a lock-out code, bypassable only by a service technician and a special reader capable of reading the code (I realize that a pressed disc is non-writable regardless, but the design of the PS3 BluRay doesn't necessarily need to mirror the design of standard BluRay; It could very well incorporate small, burnable tracks).
That physically locks out the media, and if they protect the firmware properly (perhaps by having a second BIOS that starts up on system boot to check the checksum of the first before handing the boot process off to the primary BIOS), it will prevent piracy in such a way that it cannot be circumvented by Joe Sixpack or Script Kiddie Bob. Add in a very specific layout for the free space on the BluRay disc, failing with a non-writable status of that region of a disc never before played on the console, and it would make it extremely difficult for standard burning applications to burn a CD. And impossible for the pressed CD to be passed from console to console.
If the console reads a recognized rental agency as the registration on the burned portion of the disc (read from a list pushed to each unit by Sony upon internet connect and stored when offline), then the console plays anyway, perhaps with the inability to save or go online with it; Perhaps specific per-game instructions.
Each disc would have a pre-burnt portion from the factory with a unique ID code, and if a rental agency loses a copy, they can report it and have the ID code added to a blacklist/no-play list. If the lost game shows up on an internet-connected PS3, the game's locked from the console and the console registration information sent to the rental company. Full name, address, phone number, etc, all verified through international directories and an automated call to verify the phone number. Credit information could also be required to ensure that there is a responsible adult in the household. Such a figure must agree to a EULA that explains the process in thick legalese.
I dunno, if they were to do it that way, it seems like an invasive operation, but hey, it saves Sony, their shareholders, AND the rental companies from the effects of a software-based solution, with only slight manufacture time/cost increase per disc.
It would completely alienate anyone who would want to sell a second-hand copy, or buy one, but it would accomplish exactly what they want to accomplish. It would ensure that sales are final, rental sales are excluded from actual sales, and it would ensure that they get money from ALL sales and a portion of rental profits.
Possible? I think so. At the PS3's price, anything can happen.
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
Sony looks like Microsoft without the brain.
How many stupid things can you do when you truly believe that your loyal consumers will "never" leave you.
I totally agree Sony could sell every console until Christmas at that price, but I'll bet with all the negative press there's no way the company themselves will do anything like that though.
I do imagine we'll see a lot of price gouging and similar ebay flurries, though it's harder for people to buy two when they are that expensive.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Libel is committed in republishing libels, not only in originating them.
Welcome to the news business. It's all about the story.
The actual news story was correct (Anon source in UK claims Sony will not allow used games, industry experts think it is bunk). What I object to is Slashdot's fanciful retelling of the subject matter and subsiquent furor from gamers.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Most insightfull post!! EVER!!..
What are these fools at Sony thinking? Just hearing that they WANT to stop game resales makes me not want to spend $600 on a PS3... Let's see... DRM, $600 PS3, Wii knockoff gyro-motion controller, want to make games unable to be resold... that pretty much settles it for me! Sony needs a good talking to.
This just in! 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population.
JAJAJAJAJAJA!!! XD
now... that's really something, I have nothing aginst sony or PS3, but now they had come with something really stupid...
First, you have the most expensive console on the market by $200. Then, the head of SCE rolls out and says the PS3 is too cheap, as if Sony is doing us some kind of favor by making the game console so "reasonably" priced. The games, pressed to the higher priced and rare Blue-Ray format, will likely be more expensive than the competition as well.
Now, Sony is going to try to limit resales on top of that? This is corporate suicide 3DFX style. Sony thinks they can use their market momentum to shoo in the PS3, but I think they will find otherwise. There is no _way_ I would lay down 6 bills for a stinking game console. I could get a pretty loaded Dell with a 19" LCD for that.
IMHO, it's the Wii that's going to dominate - $200, a back to basics fun game approach instead of PC shovelware, and a really innovative control system? Hell, I'm thinking about signing up for one of those...
-R
Yet another reason why I will not buy Sony products.
Seems like they are in the business to force others to there standards, and not customer service.
The "expert in retail law" quoted in the story doesn't seem to know much about copyright and licensing.
The game cartridge/disc and the game software are two different things and are subject to different sets of laws. As a result, it is possible to impose a legal restriction on the use of the game software that effectively guts the used market. Whether this makes business sense is another matter entirely.
Transactions involving the physical object - the cartridge or disc - are governed by the chain of contracts for sale (and any applicable law imported by those contracts) between the manufacturer, distributor, retailer and end user. In most jurisdictions, each seller's rights in this physical object are exhausted once this sale occurs - if X sells a widget to Y and later X doesn't like what Y does with the widget, X has no claim against Y unless X reserved some contractual right to prevent X from doing whatever it is that X is doing with the widget. Furthermore, if X sold a widget to Y and Y resold the widget to Z despite a contractual term forbidding Y from reselling the widget, X can't go after Z - as X has no more property rights in the widget and no contract with Z, X only has a contractual claim against Y for breaching the restriction on resale. Thus, Sony (or whoever manufactured the cartridge/disc) cannot prevent the end user from reselling the cartridge/disc to a third party because there is no contract of sale between Sony and the end user.
However, if the buyer proposes to play the game, the software - copyrightable expression - contained on the disc/cartridge will be copied (into console memory), which would be infringement unless the owner of the game copyright licenses this use of the software to the end user. The terms of this licence are governed by the EULA. The EULA is an agreement between the copyright owner (probably Sony, though perhaps the game publisher) and the end user. This agreement, a contract, does not come into being unless and until the end user does something like play the game for the first time. If a term of the EULA is that the licence is non-transferable, the end user cannot assign his/her contractual right not to be sued for infringement to a third party.
Thus, if X buys a game and plays it, X is bound by the EULA between X and the copyright owner. If X decides the game sucks and wants to sell it to his friend Y, X can always sell the cartridge/disc, but he can't transfer his rights under the EULA if there is a term of that agreement preventing him from doing so. Y would have to approach the copyright owner and get his own licence; otherwise, Y would be infringing copyright.
The effect of a EULA that prevents assignment of the licence is to kill the used market. No one will buy a used game unless they are willing to bear the risk of being sued for infringement (which reduces their willingness to pay for a used game) or just want to own a hunk of plastic or metal (which has very little value). End users remain free to sell the CD or cartridge, but the buyer can't (legally) do anything useful with it.
If this report is true, there is a significant downside for Sony. Some people want to resell their games after they get tired of them. If they're prevented from doing so by copyright law and the EULA, they will be less willing to pay for the game in the first place. Thus, while killing off the used market may increase sales to people who would otherwise buy a used copy, it will also reduce sales to people who want to resell their copy at a later date. Depending on how the consumer preferences break down, Sony might actually be worse off.
Bottom line - what Sony is alleged to be considering is no great abuse of copyright law. It sounds perfectly legal. Whether it makes business sense depends on other factors.
Finally, whoever wrote the article needs to find an "expert" who actually knows the law.
Will Sega use the failure of the PS3 to catapult themselves back into the market, or will Wii and XBox360 be enough?
$ man woman *
-bash:
Yes, but what did you just purchase? The physical media
Title 17, United States Code, Section 101, defines several terms used in the U.S. copyright statute. One of these is "copy", meaning physical media. State laws define "sale" and "owner". If I lawfully obtained the physical media in a "sale", then I am by definition "the owner of a copy" and am entitled to all the rights granted by the copyright statutes to "the owner of a copy".
and a license to the copyrighted work on that media. Not a license to copy the work into your console's memory.
Title 17, United States Code, Section 117, states the following:
Copying the program from disc into RAM is almost certainly "an essential step".The situation may have changed with the DMCA (and foreign counterparts) and encrypted installers, allowing decryption of the installer to potentially count as valuable consideration for the rights given up in the typical EULA, but this legal theory has never been tested in a U.S. court.
Fuck you too
What is sony going to do, make a parent press "yes" to play the game so it is enforcable?
How about requiring retailers to card all people buying a game restricted in this way?
I do more gaming on my PC anyway, and I can make a PC now to do what a PS3 will do later, for about the same price and without the lunacy.
Problem here is that most of the 4-player-on-one-screen games are console exclusives (e.g. Smash Bros.) or multi-console exclusives (e.g. Bomberman). And no, LAN games aren't an option for most families because the hardware costs $2400 for four players, and the software costs $160 per game because most require a retail copy per machine.
Where would the licence agreement happen?
In the store, after you've been carded to make sure you're of legal age to enter into a binding contract.
With entire companies that sprang up to create the resale market it's ludicrous for Sony to suggest that they would stop it from happening.
If sony does this (make u register the disc to the hardware and rend it usless on anyother system) I will NOT buy it, I am perfectly happy with my Xbox 360. I really like sony and their games but this is not only affecting profit, it hits us gamers HARD. So I guess sony doesn't want anyone to have friends, since afterall when I go to a friends house I bring my games, not my whole damn entertainment system. Now that I think about it that cvould actually hurt sales. There have been many occasions where a friend would bring a game over or let me borrow it, and I ended up liking it so much i actually went out and bought it. I was really looking foward to the PS3 but if this story is true, sony lost me asa customer.
many publishers are furious that they have to spend support money on consumers who have not actually contributed a dime to the company's coffers.
How is this an issue? Sure, the person who bought the used game didn't contribute more money to the game makers coffers, but they still got that initial money from the original owner who WON'T be needing support anymore. So they lose one person to support and gain one, I think that cancels things out fairly.
I also really wonder how much support console games really need. I would think that PC games need an huge amount more people supporting the games since both bug fixes can actually be applied to PC games and not really on consoles and also PC's can be configured completely differently and have software conflicting with other software which are issues a console does not have.
All I can say to the game companies is quit your bitching you greedy son of bitches. If it was game copying they would have a leg to stand on but they have nothing to complain about here.
Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
All I have to say to the troll that posted this is BRAVO. You have successfully fomented hate and slathering knee-jerkery by re-posting (yeah, it's not even a NEW troll) an old canard.
I hope the herd got a kiss on the neck before they were lubelessly defiled. Tools.
Sony can bite me too. So can every one of their stock holders. (That's the new democracy you know)
If they'd thought this through, they could have forced people into not being able to resell the games by making them unplayable until they've been "patched". Microsoft do this with windows, and many PC games makers already do something similar.
"Yes, you can resell the game, but there was a couple of bugs in it, and without the verified update, you're only going to be able to play the first two levels."
That way, you get to release software as "beta" (a good thing), you don't have any restriction on the resale of the physical media (good thing), but you enforce the one person, one full licence rule (good thing).
Training monkeys for world domination since 1439
Think about how much money Blockbuster makes from rentals of PS2 games. They arent going to give up that revenue stream.
anoher reason for me **NOT** to buy a PS3!
Verveces tui similes pro ientaculo mihi appositi sunt
I wouldn't mind their attitude at all if they BOUGHT BACK the games from me. That way at least there's an inkling of fairness. I own the game, I should be able to sell it. If Sony doesn't want it to go on to another gamer, then they should be the ones buying it off me.
They have been agressively persuing this since the betamax days and they have yet to really figure it out.
Can someone name one benefit to memory stick that made it better than existing flash standards?
How about why it took so long for them to make an mp3 player, but not first without creating a new compression standard.
Or the battle for Blu-Ray? I am pretty sure that Sony sees the PS3 as the key to "beating" HD-DVD.
UMD....lets sell lower quality, proprietary format for more than the price of a DVD(umm DUH?)
Sony wants you to listen to your sony cds on your sony cd player and watch sony movies with your sony dvd player on your sony tv through your sony stereo. If they could get away with preventing you from using a non-sony approved product with any of thier products I whole heartedly believe they would. Thankfully even the most developmentally challenged of consumers wouldn't have this....I hope.
I like most of sony's products, but I agree that they are completely arrogant and do not consider the customer to be the primary driving force behind product development. They have this attitude of we are sony and can do what we want and everyone will still buy our stuff because we are sony no matter how much we crap all over our customers.
Now I don't doubt that Sony would love to be able to do this, but technically it would be very difficult and I think that the consumer backlash would really suprise sony.
adj. (1) foolish pride, such as that shortly preceding a fall
1 983
Etymology - derived from the Welsh word for "idiot"
Nota bene - the great video game crash of 1983, shortly before which a prominent game executive said he could take a crap in a box, and people would buy it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Game_Crash_of_
You are entitled to your opinion; however, when posting an article to a blog site to inform others, you do not blatently mis-represent the article to fit your opinion of the subject. We have all seen your bias in your postings, but enough is enough.
The article's title clearly states "Doubts Over Pre-owned PS3 Bombshell". The article is reporting on a RUMOR about Sony trying to stop used game sales. Of the three people quoted in the article, there isn't a single one who actually thinks Sony is going to do such a thing. Indeed, the three people quoted in the article all mention that they think the story is bogus. So why do you post a summary entitled "Sony May Try To Stop PS3 Game Resales", a title which conveys the message that Sony is actively pursuing this? The "from the because-we-can't-hate-them-enough dept." remark is just childish and uncalled for.
I increasingly finding that I am ignoring the Game articles on slashdot because of this bias problem. If any other editors are reading this, please have a talk with Zonk over his posting habits.
This is not a troll or personal attack, it's just a post to highlight a problem.
Why is Zonk allowed to post here again?
Does every new site need a FUD officer these days?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
SCEE PR manger Jennie Kong blasted the rumor as " false speculation." "PlayStation 3 software will not be copy protected to a single machine but will be playable on any PlayStation 3 console,"
The story is a lie. Clearly Slashdot editors hate Sony enough that any slander they come across is promoted immediately to a top level article.
Publishers and developers benefit substantially from the used game cycle. The vast majority of games are traded for NEW products. Stopping trades would remove millions of dollars of currency from the marketplace. Just imagine Honda trying to stop the sale of used cars because they don't profit directly from secondary sales. Not only would folks stop buying Honda's, their new sales would plummet when trades cease. It will never happen. They know very well that trades drive sales of their shiny new cars and that dealerships survive only from the extended margin of their used car sales. Yeah, they might get a small bump from the folks who can no longer trade used cars for other used cars, but that would pale by comparison to lost new sales. I wouldn't worry much about this one folks. Sony would be nuts to do this.
I bet a lot of upset people now will be impressed with something on the PS3 and buy one despite all this. They will not lose many customers over this stuff:
/. people will forgive them when Sony gets some nice bait on their expensive hook.
1) Most people don't know
2) Many who know will forget in less than a year
3) Some
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
It seems like Sony is really trying to flame out here. I can see their point, the government takes a cut whenever money exchanges hands regardless of whether "work" was done. Corporations pay taxes and then they pay shareholders a dividend which is then taxed again as income. Software companies have wanted a cut of that for ages. The music artists don't get paid for the used stuff, it's way more profit for the dealers, it's just like used cars.
All things being equal, I doubt that this is a significant thing. A lot more games are kept than sold used. I still like the "safty net" that the used market provides, every now and then you do end up with a really really shitty game and just want to get rid of it. I don't sell many though and most people don't sell any, it's just more bad PR on what already looks like a PR disaster and maybe a lot worse.
If I was sony, I'd go out and start giving a little first. Like if you buy a PS3 within 9 months of launch they will give you 5 games of your choosing. Or they'll give you the blu-ray versions of 10 of your standard Sony published DVDs or something. Right now I just see PS3 costing a lot and not delivering that much more than the competition (if it is delivering anything more than the competition.) I don't want MS to win but right now it's starting to look like PS3 isn't going to just lose but be a complete bust like the dreamcast. I could be an early adopter type but I don't know if it's worth the risk here.
Consider for a moment the impact this would have on video game retail outlets such as Gamestop/EB Games. Their largest profit margins (by an enormous factor) come from video game reselling. If this actually comes to light, I for one will be shorting Gamestop in the years to come.
I agree that parts of Sony deserve every bit of negative attention they have received (Sony-BMG) but I don't think the game making division is one of them. They have at least made some gestures to try and do the right things, like providing a Linux build for the PS3...
And even the Sony movie people who I would kind of lump in with Sony-BMG generally have backed off supporting the ICT flag and thus pretty much forced every studio to follow their lead. They have given us all an opening to at least not have to adopt the onerous DHCP requiremnets for video.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"60,000,000 polygons", "Toy Story quality graphics", "games that will make you cry"? Sony lied through its teeth about the capabilities of the PS2, and the end result was the death of one of the greatest consoles ever, the Dreamcast.
Sony did the same thing with the PSP and it's doing it again with PS3.
Fuck Sony. As far as I'm concerned, they deserve all of the bad press they can get.
I agree with your post, but it doesn't appear Sony's PS3 SNAFUs have as much to do with confidence as fear.
Finances reeling and hemorrhaging massive job cuts, Sony appears to be stuck with an extremely expensive bit of R&D that it can't afford to let go cheaply enough for consumers. The high MSRP is evidence enough of that, but now with the no-resale idea (if true) there appears to be a new attempt to make the consumer and retailers pay for Sony's fiscal misfortunes by locking in game sales.
Even if the US economy doesn't soon enter a recession, the collapse of the housing bubble is predicted (by the WSJ, no less) to take roughly $100 billion out of the US retail sector this year. No more cheap-n-easy equity credit means lots of unsold $600 consoles and $60 games. Sony would do well to price and position itself for a contracting retail sector; instead, it seems oblivious. This all has the makings of a fiasco.
Basically, they're screwed.
Nostradamus in da hizzy
"Sony can theoretically sell a license to play the game, but the user would have to acknowledge acceptance of the license. You've seen this when you install software on a PC."
Yeah, because that's totally stopped people reselling PC software and games once they've got bored of them, hasn't it?
"The Inquirer has an interesting piece about a new Sony Patent on a technology that may possible prevent DVD disc media users from using their purchased disks in other machines after they have used them on a specific reader. Commentary also available on Joystiq. From the Article: 'While many are aware of the double profit companies make on pre-owned games, this would ensure the death of trading games between friends and even going to a friend's house to play a little multiplayer.'"
You see? and everybody laughed when I was screaming that the end of the world was coming! =oP
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
It seems like Sony is trying to use the concept of a "license" to get around that, and I don't think either the used game stores--who brought that lawsuit in the first place--or the courts will look favorably on that. (If nothing else, I'd take it up with them, assuming I bothered to get a PS3 in the first place.)
So Sony now wants the PS3 to be just as useless as those disposable DVDs that Best Buy tried to get people to buy?
Everytime Sony opens their collective mouth - the Wii and XBox 360 looks better and better.
Sony reminds me of Atari in the bad old days, when they self destructed and lost their multimillion dollar market space.
This concept isn't new in Japan. Looking at my old 1999 Japanese copy of 'Final Fantasy VI' from 1999 it says in English "FOR SALE AND CONSUMER USE IN JAPAN ONLY. COMMERCIAL USE AND RENTAL ARE PROHIBITED." The Japanese text basically says the same but also says it can't be sold used. There are still a ton of second hand video game stores in Japan. Not all software lists it as being prohibited so they are still able to stay in business.
Sony also directly denied the existance of the rootkit DRM at first. Then they managed to make other stupid PR moves before coming clean. At best, they appeared uncoordinated internally. So, they are a little overdrawn in the credibility bank acount.
Such a rumor is easy to believe since we all know that many a company would love to stop resales. The notion of making more money without doing any more work is a favorite in big corporations. After all, who wouldn't like that?
I'm a game collector. I'm a collector that actually plays games rather than just collecting for the sake of collecting them; thus I'm not particularly concerned about condition of the games as long as they are in good enough condition to work in somewhat foreseeable future. As such, flea markets and second-hand stores are good sources for games, and I'm happy for every cool game I've found there. A lot of games I have come from second-hand market, mostly because the current games have so amazingly short shelf life that I just can't grab them when they're released and it's often easier to find an used copy from a local store, than order a new one from some God-forsaken store online.
If they try to stop me from playing second-hand games, I won't be getting this console then. That just means I can't find the games I'm interested of unless I'm really really lucky. No used games = More pain to find the games I'm interested of.
Also, I can't see why the heck would the game companies not like second-hand game sales. For example, it helps reduce piracy. I've often been playing a ROM, until I do a tiger-leap to grab a copy of the game in question from a flea market. Whoops! I then have a fully licensed, authentic copy. If they're claiming that's not so, then I justly claim there's Something Very Lunatic Going On and they're not really doing what's in their best interests. I just got a copy of the game! Real media, real manuals, real box! Are they claiming the thing somehow turns into a non-legit copy if you sell it? Are we witnessing the miracle of, er, reverse... transubstantation in corporate setting, or something? How do I tell the difference anyway - a while ago I bought an used game and it was definitely physically indistinguishable from a new game, aside of the price tag that was 10€ off the usual prices and said "Used", too. It was in pristine condition. What if the store had lied and charged full price? They could have done that and I would have never noticed, the game was in so good condition...
OK, enough rambling... I can't seem to get anywhere today.
<fanboy type="nintendo"> Not that PS has that many interesting games anyway... =) </fanboy>
The fat lady ain't sung yet! Not by a long shot! Wait! Sony is not through tryin ....get rid of every SONY product you own. Now!!
to grab and growl. Next thing they want is to be able to lease their junk for a term, then demand and recieve unfettered use of your credit card for further permission to use 'their
licensed material'. If the tech exists to enforce no reselling, that same tech can also
be used to deny access until payment is recieved. They could conceivably lock up your Piss3 itself for any use whatsoever based on the same methodology. Guess revenue from MMORGs must be fallin off or the hogopolistis would not be workin overtime whilst thinkin up grabs. Bottom line is
Alons Enfant de la Patria, Le Jour Del Gloire Et Arrive!!
...I hate getting used CDs/DVDs and finding out they're scratched... I refuse to contribute to the strategy of e.g. EB/Gamestop/Blockbuster, where they buy something used and then turn around and sell it for much more.
We can respect these reactions, they're awake and well-intentioned. My advice to you is to concentrate on the positive feelings you get from supporting the small publishers and indies you like. Don't try to spin from that positive feeling a coherent (read: dogmatic) position about the evils of the alternatives, though. It's not working, for you or Sony.
Your posts here are sort of like a microcosm of Sony's approach, actually. Instead of giving us a way to feel good about their buying model and products and so on, they're attempting to re-assert control with a great big "Bad Dog!" to people who do things differently. They don't remind us of any rewards for buying things new, or come up with ways to encourage that; instead they're coming across as control freaks whose punitive approach we have no positive reaction to at all.
Sony, like you, is trying to rewrite the rules to make people who disagree with them actually criminal, as opposed to simply encouraging their customers in the direction they want. Pretty wrongheaded, isn't it? It doesn't have to be that way.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
FFXI on the 360 effectivly stops this type of reselling by requiring registration online. Probably wouldnt work without the game requiring online access for the rest of the catalog.
I can't imagine anyone attempting such a license. No wait, Microsoft did it. Well no one else anyway.
And besides, in my circle of friends we just pass games around anyway. If everyone buys 10 to 15 games and you have ten friends, that's well over 100 games.
Buying or selling used games never really made sense to me anyway. The money you get from a retail shop for a used game is a joke. And the price break buying them used isn't worth the hastle of replacing the book with a disk full of scratches.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
I believe this myth has been debunked but nonetheless:
This would work out in a very similar way to Valve's Steam. With Steam, you buy a license to play the game, a license that isn't transferrable. I've heard tons of complaints about Steam, but I don't think I've ever heard this one.
Could the reason just be that the games currently on Steam are mostly all 'must-own' games with tons of replay value that people just have no interest in selling?
That is what Indy really said when he looked into the tomb. That bit about snakes was just Lucas and Spielberg practising for what they were going to do to Star Wars and ET when they re-released them later.
In other words: turn your fricken silliness detector back on. I recommend a brief application of a Sequoia class cluebat to jump-start it.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
Everyone is reacting to this like it's something new. Go ahead, buy an Everquest 2 set. Play it for the free trial month, decide it stinks, and close out your account. You're now stuck with the fifty dollar game media, because sure - you COULD sell it on Ebay - but that "account key" is forever bound to you even though you had a "free trial" ... Sony's not unique with that, btw.
I wish there was a choice that said "Factually Wrong -1" when I mod.
This rumor has been entirely denied about 50 times by Sony now in official statements. PLEASE update the article, this is just stupid.
Actually, technologically there is an easy way to enforce this, and if not done this generation will surely be done next generation. We know that Sony proposed this very idea for Blu-ray, that each player would have to be permanently connected to the internet, and would check with a central server before playing anything to see if it was a legit copy. This requires unique identifiers on each disc - easily done during manufacture, and a unique identifier number for each console - easily flashed in at production also. Then, the server gives permission based on the consoles identifier and the disc being requested to play, and it locks together those two numbers the first time that disc is played. Try to play that disc on any other system and you'll get nothing. This kills the 2nd hand market immediately, and ostensibly prevents copies and pirating.
;P
Now for the obligatory: Sony's going down in flames because of this.
But actually, I'm giddy at all the missteps Sony's done lately, been waiting for them to be humbled since the PSX! Muwhahahahaha
Sony is also considering another option it's engineers have suggested. Making the game system and the disks so large that resellers would have a hard time stocking many games in their inventory. http://www.blogs.pn/images/computer/giant_gameboy. jpg
Chris McElroy aka NameCritic http://www.blogs.pn