Slashdot Mirror
PlayStation 4 'Orbis' Rumors: AMD Hardware, Hostile To Used Games
silentbrad writes "Kotaku reports some 'details' about Sony's next console given to them by a 'reliable source.' They say that the console's codename is Orbis, and it is planned for release by the 2013 holiday season. Developers are reportedly being told to plan for an AMD x64 CPU and AMD Southern Islands GPU. Further on, they mention that there will be no PS3 backwards compatibility and, like rumors about the next Xbox, will have anti-used game DRM. Specifically, 'new games for the system will be available one of two ways, either on a Blu-Ray disc or as a PSN download (yes, even full retail titles). If you buy the disc, it must be locked to a single PSN account. ... If you then decide to trade that disc in, the pre-owned customer picking it up will be limited in what they can do. ... it's believed used games will be limited to a trial mode or some other form of content restriction, with consumers having to pay a fee to unlock/register the full game.'"
If you buy the disc, it must be locked to a single PSN account. ... If you then decide to trade that disc in, the pre-owned customer picking it up will be limited in what they can do
You expect this kind of craven, heavy-handed behavior out of a Samsung or a Panasonic, sure. But Sony?!?!?
But seriously, it's been clear that developers have been asking for this for some time. They already killed the used market for PC's. Now it's console time. Sadly, I suspect MS and Nintendo will follow suit if Sony goes through with it.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
I bet this won't fly, in the end. This is going to tick off everyone, so I bet it will be so unpopular that they will relent. Gamers will revolt... retailers will revolt. It's a revolution calling! Then again, I could be wrong, of couse. ;-)
"Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
...Sony cooks up another draconian DRM scheme....
Another brilliant example of not understanding your audience. Used games are part of the lifeblood of the hobby. Make me pay full retail for every game and I will skip the platform.
Um... Yeah, and this far out in the PS3 dev cycle we thought we'd be stuck with those horrible boomerang controllers too. So I'll take it with a grain of anti-Sony-bias salt. Not that I'd put it past them, just that it's too early to start shitting myself with worry.
what exactly is going to be so cool about this console except better graphics?
$60 games with no resale means i buy one or two awesome games per year
i mostly game on my x-box and use the PS3 for movies and netflix. the xbox has enough $20 GOTY editions of good games that i have years left to play them and no need to buy any of the new systems for a long time.
my dream system for next gen is x-box with blu ray and backwards compatibility. i'll buy it even if the new next gen games are locked down since i'll play the old and use it as a blu ray player after dumping my current x-box and PS3
If they're planning on limiting the resale value of games, then they better plan on lowering the price. I know a lot of people who justified spending $40 or $50 on a game because they knew they could sell it for $20 or $30 in 6 months when they got tired of it, making the end cost a reasonable $20 or so. A move like this might end up hurting sales in spite of forcing more people to buy directly from Sony (or Sony's retailers) because a large segment of the market can no longer use the money from selling older games to buy newer ones.
Big companies seem to think that consumers have an endless supply of money to spend on anything and everything they want... no concept of a consumer has $100 to spend on games this year. If titles are $50 each, then only two get sold. If titles are $50, but they can resell each for $25 then three games get sold.
... until Sony gets hacked, PSN accounts are lost and everyone's games are rendered useless. That lawsuit should be epic.
If you buy the disc, it must be locked to a single PSN account
no PS3 backwards compatibility
Sony, I really want to enjoy the games you and your partners put out, but if you go through with this? I have two words for you.
Buh-Bye.
(Either that or Yo-Ho, if someone finds a reliable way to pirate games on to the console)
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Wow, this will cause an uproar with families I would think!
Example: Buy game for 2+ children, but each child has own account as they don't want to have their saves touched / overwritten. Find out that game can only be used on child(a) account. Child(b) cries foul, wants his own saves and doesn't want to share etc. Fight breaks out as parent can't game to work on child(b) account.
Now I don't think this will be extremely COMMON to be honest, but I could certainly see some backlash from it! I don't like having other people in the house using my account to play games, as I fear that someone would accidentally mess up my saves etc. I'm sure a self entitled child will throw complete fits over it.
Practice Static Safety - Hack Naked
because perhaps at some point people will simply stop buying into Sony's 'all your stuff are belong to us' attitude and take their gaming and consumer electronics purchases to other companies. The sooner Sony buries itself in its own bullshit and dies a spectacular death, the better, as far as I'm concerned.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
If publishers can count on more direct sales
That $10 I don't get anymore for turning in the old games no longer goes towards buying new ones.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
It will not work long term. The big game studios and makers have enjoyed some of the largest profits in history without doing this. The pirate 'customer' now will have a better product then the paid customer. Sometimes companies fail to understand the ecosystem effect of having these used sellers out there. The used sellers make a small amount of money, but they bring money back to the consumer who spends it on NEW games and the used seller may bring in a second new customer that eventually buys full priced games as well. Just because a company Gamefly makes a little money, does not mean that the money was sucked out of Sony. With Gamefly (and like companies) in the gaming ecosystem, Sony may make MORE money. Too bad they do not understand this.
I wouldn't see a problem with it, as long as they adjusted the game prices to reflect they no longer have any resale value. Steam, which is quite popular, has the exact same problem, but is offset by a number of advantages. In the grand scheme of things though, the ability to get PC games a lot cheaper, both using online retailers, and from sales within steam itself is what really made this acceptable. Also, to this date, you can still make Steam accounts per game to work around this issue somewhat, regardless of its against their TOS or not. I can't see Sony handling this in the same way, though.
If you do this, I won't buy it. Lots of people won't. Stop this stupid BS.
You really need to learn to think in the long term. People will pay a lot for a game when it first comes out, but if you do this DRM crap, you MUST follow through and offer older games at much lower prices, and continue to do so for YEARS if not DECADES. Used game stores do this for you, and allow people with less money to remain rabid fans, and buy your big games when they first come out. If you kill the used game market, you cut those players off. Once they are cut off, they will find other things to do. YOU DO NOT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN.
If you must have DRM, you need to offer games from old systems that run on emulation on your new systems for free or next to nothing, and you need to offer older games at prices that used games get now. You need to keep people playing. If you keep playing these stupid DRM games without offering a substitute, then people will stop playing, and you will go the way of the music industry. Maybe someone like Apple will come along and save your sorry ass, and drag you kicking and screaming into a new, profitable business model, but I wouldn't bet on it.
I am going to open up a sarcasm detector repair shop. I mean, the guy even followed up his sarcasm with "But seriously..."
Look at all this from Sony's perspective - what has been one of the wilder gaming successes in recent years?
The iOS platform.
There people cannot trade or otherwise share games. But it ends up not really mattering because in the iOS world there are so many developers vying for purchasers that the real world has actually had an impact on pricing - pricing is quite low per title.
Or you could even come at it from the PC side and note the only model that is really growing there very well is Steam - again no sharing of games, but lower prices.
So I would submit it's you who are out of touch with what modern gamers accept.
Of course it remains to be seen if Sony REALLY understands that for the no-sharing model to work, prices must also come down substantially for each title. They are adopting the DRM protected no-sharing model because it's innately what they desire anyway, but can they unclench the greed fist just a little? Hard to say. All I know is I have a PS3 but am pretty unlikely to get an Orbis, even if it supports Vorbis...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A rented games is an used game right? What will happen with services like redbox,blockbuster or gamefly?
Later, Sony. I, for one, will be dropping your future platforms as a source of entertainment. I have truly enjoyed my PS3, PS2 and yes, even my venerated and much-wobbly PS/One. But attempting to control a free-trade aftermarket by locking users into your wonky website as the sole provider of goods is right out. What do we do with those shiny new units when you decide to upgrade your hardware again - toss them in a landfill? Try to make end-tables out of them? I think this is where I get off the planned obsolescence bandwagon. Bye now.
As for Micro$oft: pfffft.
~Just as a thing fails if it lacks a kernel, so too it fails if it lacks a skin. ~ Rumi, Discourses
Right, like *that's* a viable business model.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
I love Steam because I don't have to hassle with selling my used games. It does not bother me in the least because I never pay over $15 for a game. They frequently have great sales and you can build an awesome library with very little money.
A console that would work the same way would be a great thing. Of course, Sony needs to work on their security... and their game prices!
I get the impression that this war against used games is actually against Gamestop specifically. We don't have Gamestop in my country so I can't speak from experience or any kind of authority, but everything I've heard and read about them strongly suggests that their business model is based upon not simply selling used games, but doing everything they can to actively obstruct new game sales in order to further the used game market. Most used markets don't have a single player with as much influence, and don't act with such hostility toward the industry who's work supports them.
The rootkit actually came from BMG. Yes, they were owned by Sony when it was released, but they had just been bought. Unless they had truly miraculous coding skills, the rootkit must have been planned, designed and mostly implemented by BMG independently.
Yes, they revoked the ability to boot into Linux, but they were the only console vendors to offer such an option in the first place. And before that, they actually sold full Linux kits for the PS, including their own distro. I actually bought my PS3 in part because it had the OtherOS option, and I still think I made the best choice at the time despite later developments.
Everything else you said is very true, but their current stance on such matters is actually more surprising than a naive glance might suggest--and a naive glance is all that most slashdotters (or people in general) can muster.
Funny, I can buy a house "used" and not be obligated to pay the original builder a dime. A house can even appreciate in value beyond the original purchase price. The original developer still gets nothing from the profits of the sale. There is no grand conspiracy to deprive house builders of something they're owed, because they aren't owed squat.
This is just another example of software companies trying to cherry-pick the distinction between "owned" and "licensed." Your CD is scratched and won't read anymore? Sorry, you own the product and you'll need to buy another one as a replacement. Oh, you want to sell the product to someone else? Nope, you didn't really buy it, you purchased a license which isn't transferrable. Unadulterated cash-grab, it is.
Is that why Steam failed, oh wait, no, it's the dominant distribution platform on the PC.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.