Slashdot Mirror
Sony Joins the Offensive Against Pre-Owned Games
BanjoTed writes "In a move to counter sales of pre-owned games, EA recently revealed DLC perks for those who buy new copies of Mass Effect 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Now, PlayStation platform holder Sony has jumped on the bandwagon with similar plans for the PSP's SOCOM: Fireteam Bravo 3. '[Players] will need to register their game online before they are able to access the multiplayer component of the title. UMD copies will use a redeemable code while the digital version will authenticate automatically in the background. Furthermore ... anyone buying a pre-owned copy of the game will be forced to cough up $20 to obtain a code to play online."
If memory serves, isn't the PSP one of those systems it's (relatively) easy to pirate for?
I have a feeling Sony has traded getting no money from resales to getting no money because everyone's downloading a cracked version.
They really are completely delusional. What benefit does this provide to the consumers that they'll react positively to? Is there even any theoretical benefit to the consumer? Maybe the research was done entirely among Sony executives.
This sentence no verb.
How long before there is a class action lawsuit against Sony for articifically reducing the value of assets that are purchased in good faith. What happens if you wish to sell your PS3 and all of the games? The package will be devalued by the amount of resubscriptions required for the online games.
Nothing like discouraging people from wanting to buy their product -- new or used. I knew Sony was an evil empire (coming from someone that worked for them far too long), but this is just stupid.
I know car analogies are old on slashdot but I seriously wonder how long before car manufacturers start building the electronic components of their cars such that they are needlessly dependent on some online system run by the manufacturer so that your fuel indicator only works correctly if your car has been able to update this month from the manufacurers online fuel level measuring methods database and your aircon shuts down unless authenticated with a secure server on a regular basis as a "car theft prevention measure".
Idiot lawmakers make bypassing or removing the "anti car theft" systems for any reason a crime.
Drivers pay through the nose to have an account with the manufacturer.
Manufacturers get more profit since now people have an incentive to not buy used cars.
Shills start trolling car enthusiast message boards talking about how it's a good thing because this way the car companies get more money to build better cars and everyone wins except those dirty car thieves.
I can honestly see it happening.
How long before there is a class action lawsuit against Sony for articifically reducing the value of assets that are purchased in good faith. What happens if you wish to sell your PS3 and all of the games? The package will be devalued by the amount of resubscriptions required for the online games.
And that's grounds for legal action because? Sony is not stopping you from reselling the games; just not letting you transfer the subscription; something you knew when you bought the game.
A flip side to this is it benefits someone who doesn't play online - used game prices will drop to accommodate the subscription fee; and if you don't plan to play online you now have a code that you can sell to someone who bought a used game. Either way your price for the game would drop if you don't play online.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
If I don't want to play online, am I allowed to return the code to Sony for a $20 refund? I should be.
Put identity in the browser.
EA/Bioware adds little perks for people who buy the retail version of the game or preorder it even (a suit of armor, a downloadable character) that you really want to have in a game you have a strong desire to play (Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2). Sony utterly gimps your gameplay experience. I am not bothered by one (and hell think it's a good idea) guess which one that is.
I used to be a fan of my C64 games as a kid and I loved playing PC games for years. So much in fact I tried breaking into game development and ran the local IGDA chpater for some years. My heart is still with games and I think they are a wonderful extension to the artforms of literature, cinema and storytelling. When I see how the game dev industry treats its customers these days, I really get the feeling they are way beyond stretching their welcome. Games (especially console games) are so icredibly overpriced and lacking of creativity and intellectual depth that I wonder why gamers are still interested in buying/playing them. I haven't upgraded my gaming pc for almost 8 years now and I only have a Wii because my wife like the balance board games (and admittedly I love being her audience). The only games I occassionaly play are the really old ones, like Civ II/III Baldur's Gate stuff, the good old Sierra point and clicks (Larry, 2D King Quest) because of the humor and fun in these games. Also I really love firing up the C64 emulator for a quick round of classics. When will they stop squeezing customers for every penny and drop the incredible graphics/hardware performance race that has been polluting the game content for the past decade. I don't give a damn about 3D performnace or yet another FPS, come up with something new, interesting exciting. Something that doesn't insult my intelligence and challenges and entertains me in a more subtle way. Dear Douglas Adams I miss you, you were well on your way to solve this problem but you passed too soon. Oh god, is no one going to change this rotten game dev industry we're having? Perhaps I'm just an old fool blabbering about the lost good old days, but doesn't anyone agree that it's not supposed to be like this? *sigh*
> Sony is not stopping you from reselling the games; just not letting you transfer the subscription; something you knew when you bought the game.
Online play is a part of the game as advertised on the retail box. Therefore barring use from another machine is a crime on Sony's part. There is no "subscription' - I'm not paying Sony to play this game, I paid the store and online play was included.
What if my PS3 breaks down due to a technical failure and Sony's warranty replaces the unit. I would then have to pay $20 again for each game?
It doesnt bypass anything. The first sale doctrine still applies, and Sony has to allow the transfer of DLC to other accounts. Of course someone has to sue them first to force them to respect the law, until that happens they can flaunt the law all they want.
By the reasoning that you've used, I think that one has to endorse what Sony's doing here. After reading through most of the comments, I think I do anyway. All Sony's doing, after all, is competing more effectively. Their competitor is a reseller. Therefore, is there really anything wrong with Sony creating a product that is more useful when purchased new than when purchased from their competitor? Let's try a different spin on this: Sony isn't selling crippled software. They're selling software bundled with a one-time use subscription code. $30 for the software, $20 for the code. Sorry, no refunds, though. If you're interested in just the single-player experience, you should buy the game used. It's fine if you choose to sell the software but the new user will also have to subscribe.
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
Well maybe not - I guess this is up to the company to set up rules for usage of their products. Instead of charging for games and usage fees on servers they could have change their business model into one where vendor benefits from either usage fees or registration and usage fees. without need to pay for software. This not only eliminates the need to purchase a game but at the same time eliminates the piracy as we know it. Of course then the trade in stolen access codes will ensue but this is easier to control than the stolen access codes on top of pirated software. But I guess at the end the user will be asked to pay on all occasions: by purchase, by on-line registration and monthly fee on top (plus a fart fee for farting while on-line).
They already tried something similar when cars first started having diagnostic ports - you had to use a special machine to read the diagnostic code which was only available from the manufacturer to franchised dealers. This is why OBD-II was developed and is now mandated in much of the world.
This is a cycle, and I'm stuck in it. When the PS3 came out, first I waited simply because I wanted to be sure the platform took off. I eventually said to myself "It's going well, as soon as they drop the price I'll buy one." Well, they not only dropped the price, they dropped the emotion chip. ...so I didn't buy it. Later they were to drop the price, and they dropped the Emotion chip EMULATOR TOO, then Linux boot support, now they're dropping my ability to get good value on resale of games (since that $20 is getting passed to the consumer, my game is not $20 less valuable at resale, especially since most used games I BUY are only $20 or less, that's a huge hit). I was all set, finally just willing to admit there were few enough PS2 games I have that I'd actualyl play it was worth just keeping the PS2 slim i have around to play them, and I was going to buy a PS3 this summer when the price inevitably dropped again.
Sorry Sony, your screwed yourselves again. I'll just buy another PC based game or two, maybe a new Vid Card.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
I don't buy a Sony TV because of my past experiences with Sony's car radios etc. The whole DRM thing is useful to tell the good ones from the bad ones.
Having such cool products.... I wonder if they fully appreciate what they're doing to their brand.
I don't buy Sony products because:
I think any of those alone are enough reason to boycott any company. Put more than one into a single company and there's no excuse to buy anything from them.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
They feel the need to screw their customers, and I feel the need not to buy their products.
Shine on, Sony. Shine on.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
"They did underhanded deals to foist a sub-optimal solution (Blu-Ray) on everyone."
After putting out a superior product in the days of VCR's and getting owned, they learned their lesson. This is the way business is done. You make the deals that you need to make in order to turn a profit.
But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
So long as Sony is upfront about its policy (which may be in question given it is Sony) who cares.
There is a very easy solution. Vote with your wallet. Don't buy the game. If you feeling really pissed, don't buy Sony products. They will get the message eventually, or if they don't they won't be around much longer.
It really is that simple.
However if they "trick" people into buying their products, and then once it is too late announce that "Oh BTW that thing you just bought is now crippled by this DRM, you must be online or register online, etc... to actually play our game". That would piss me off to the point where I would be demanding my money back.
Except it's not up to the company -- the fact that they're trying to invent that right by stripping away the property rights of the buyer is the ENTIRE FUCKING PROBLEM!!!!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
People have a right to use their own personal property; Sony does not and should not have the authority to interfere!
The physical game disc that you bought is your property. The services that you access with it are not. Sony has the right to decide who can access external services for a game. They have a right to create ToSs for it and the right to enforce it.
If you are an abusive fuck, they have every right to prohibit you from using THEIR servers to play online. Furthermore, if you accept the premise that they have the right to charge a subscription fee to play online (whether or not it makes sense for them to do so from a market perspective), then I don't see really any problem in a legal sense for this new scheme they are using. It's not very much different than the MMO model, just a one-time charge rather you might have to pay if you got the game second hand, rather than a monthly fee.