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?
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."
"According to a UK news source" the article claims. This is fit for the tabloids. I guess thats why its posted by Zonk.
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!
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.And do the people who write these articles (citing unnamed sources) ever study economics?
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.
The secondary market adds value for the consumer. The average consumer will be more likely to buy a new release for $60 if they think they'll be able to resell it for $35 when they're done with it. Furthermore, publishers wouldn't be spending support money if they didn't release buggy products to begin with. All in all, the secondary market probably has a very small effect on how much publishers actually pocket.
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?
It isn't that Sony hates their customers that much and more that PS3 games really cost that much to produce. Sony needs to ensure that everyone who is willing to buy a game buys a new copy of that game.
What it boils down to is this: there has been a standard (exponential) rate of growth in the cost to produce a game per generation.
Aproximate Average Game Development Cost
NES: $25,000 - $50,000
SNES: $100,000 - $200,000
N64/Playstation: $500,000-$1,000,000
PS2/Gamecube/XBox: $2,000,000-4,000,000
Estimate PS3/XBox 360: $5,000,000-$20,000,000
If you're spending in the $20,000,000 you need to sell 2 Million copies before you break even; this would put you in the league of Super Mario Sunshine or The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker in sales before you break even. Sony can't afford to have you to save a couple of dollars by buying a used game.
I'm not defending Sony, just trying to explain what they are doing.
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
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
. . . 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
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...
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).
What consumer backlash? - People dont care, even with the rootkit stuff people still went out and brought the CD's, if anything it put the name 'SONY' out in the publics mind more than a regular marketing campaign.
People are lazy and really could careless, right up until the point it really does affect them, but then its too late...
Excellent Phoenix AZ Office Space - Thistle Landing
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.
The story is about technological tieing of the software to the hardware. So, if this was true at all, the person likely to sue would be the person to whom grown-up-Timmy sold the software, having claimed it was a playable game when, in fact, it was inert except on the console for which it was licensed, which Timmy, presumably, did not sell with the game.
Of course, it seems unlikely that this is practical with a game disk, unless it has a phone-home activation which then gets a key which is stored on writable media (memory card, hard disk), that depends on a second key which is unique to the hardware.
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.
While your second point is very true, the reason DVDs can cost less is that there are more avenues for the studios to make money from a movie than the DVD - theatrical release,foreign distribution rights, pay-per-view, HBO, cable, network TV, airlines, hotels, licensing, product placement, etc... (That and the fact that a movie will give you only 2 hours of entertainment, so the consumers aren't willing to pay more.)
DVDs are highly profitable for the studios because the movie has possibly/probably/hopefully already broke even before the DVD comes out, thus the DVD is a very profitable venture.
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.
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