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.'"

Comments

I lost count

[Roody Blashes]

How many reasons do I now have to not buy a PS3?

Re:I lost count

[narrowhouse]

I am not even a big gamer, but back when it looked like Sony planned on shipping the PS3 with Linux installed, at $399 a pop, I thought I might get one just to have a blu-ray player and a linux machine running on a cell processor. Since then Sony:

1- installed a root kit on my In-laws machine through a Neil Diamond CD
2- increased the price dramatically
3- announced that they would like to uni-laterally revoke my right to resell items I purchase.
4- generally bone headed their way through every press conference they have had without apologizing directly for any of their bad behavior.

so I don't have an exact count of reasons, but I know the sum == enough.

Re:I lost count

[mrscorpio]

You mean like the precidents allowing people to make copies of stuff they legally own (e.g. DVD to VHS)?

Re:I lost count

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Do not purchase second hand products (I prefer the artist, producers and manufacturers to be paid for my purchases)

Um, why? It isn't like secondhand goods are black market - Sony already got paid the first time, and trading used goods is a good way to save money. Why are you so intent in giving Sony your money?

Re:I lost count

[senatorpjt]

Sony, you're thinking of Sony-BMG

Isn't that kind of like saying "I didn't kill the guy. It was the bullet's fault."

Re:I lost count

[ipfwadm]

Interesting... I am an artist, and I find your position entirely foreign and incomprehensible. Let's look at a couple scenarios:

Scenario 1: Person (a) buys a photograph from me for $100. Five years from now, he sells it to person (b) for $100, who also keeps it for five years.

Scenario 2: Person (c) buys a photograph from me for $100 and keeps it for ten years.

At the end of these ten years, in both scenarios there has been a net transaction value of $100. All $100 of this is in my pocket. Also in both scenarios, only one of my photographs has left my hands (I did not lose a second photograph when the first was sold, nor did a second come into being). In both scenarios my photograph has gotten ten years of use. The only difference is that in the first scenario this use was split between two people, whereas in the second it was a single person. So how is this anything like theft? The only way I lose out is if person (a) sells to person (b) for a (inflation-adjusted) profit. But this is generally unlikely during an artist's lifetime, and would basically never happen with mass-produced works such as CDs, DVDs, and games.

You may argue that person (a) selling to person (b) cost me a sale because person (b) did not buy directly from me. But maybe I raised my prices when person (b) decided to buy, and he didn't like my higher prices. Maybe person (a) actually sold it for a loss, and person (b) was unwilling to pay the full $100. There are a number of reasons why person (b) may never have been a potential sale. Further, person (a) may not have been willing to buy in the first place if there was no secondary market.

The only way you could argue it's theft is if the original purchaser has gotten "full use" out of a work. But it is impossible to get full use out of an item that has "unlimited usage", as you put it. Say I buy a DVD, for example. I watch it 100 times. I watch it so many times I don't think I could ever watch it again. Have I gotten full use out of it? No, of course not - I could change my mind and watch it 100 more times. Or I could sell it after those initial 100 screenings, and the purchaser could watch it 100 times. Either way, the DVD is getting watched 200 times. The copyright owners didn't lose out by having the secondary purchaser watch it 100 times any more than they lost out by me watching it 100 more times.

Really what this sounds like, though, is a thinly-veiled desire to do away with "unlimited usage" items entirely and, for example, make DVDs self-destruct after x number of viewings. Because, you know, me getting 400 hours of enjoyment out of a $15 DVD just HAS to be theft.

How to fail

[jonnythan]

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."

Another for the rumor bin...

[blanktek]

"According to a UK news source" the article claims. This is fit for the tabloids. I guess thats why its posted by Zonk.

Oh Sony... I pity you...

[creepynut]

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.

could it be true?

[L-Train8]

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.

Killing off the game rental market as well?

[WuphonsReach]

What will this do to the game rental market? (Does Blockbuster still rent games?)

Story based on nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just another stupid baseless rumor. The story is printed with no source and no evidence. The story is just another variation on a year-old rumor that Sony has already directly denied. The "Sony has a patent on such a technology" in the story fails to mention the patent in question was originally filed in the Playstation 1 era. Go and look up the original patent-- it talks about CD-ROMs.

But, hey, the new rules of gaming media are

1. Is it about Sony?
2. 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.

Re:Wow, just wow.

[NewWorldDan]

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.

Easy workaround?

[Bastian]

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?

More FUD from the anti-Sony cabal

[SuperKendall]

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?

Online games...

[OneFix at Work]

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...

How to Make Your Company The Most Hated

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

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).

GamesRadar again...

[faust2097]

This is the same site that falsely announced that the base-model PSP woul have wired controllers and a non-upgradable hard drive:
http://www.gamesradar.com/gb/ps3/game/news/article .jsp?articleId=20060513133719562032&sectionId=1006

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.

This is a lie

[kaffiene]

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.