Slashdot Mirror
New Sony Patent Blocks Second-hand Games
silentbrad writes in with a story about a Sony patent that would block the playing of second-hand games. "... the patent application was filed on 9 December 2012 by Sony Computer Entertainment Japan, and will work by linking individual game discs to a user's account without requiring a network connection meaning any future attempt to use this disc on another user's console won't work. The patent explains that games will come with contactless tags that will be read by your console in much the same way as modern bank cards. When a disc is first used, the disc ID and player ID will be stored on the tag. Every time the disc is used in future, the tag will check if the two ID's match up and, if not, then the disc won't work. The document goes on to explain that such a device is part of Sony's ongoing efforts to deter second-hand games sales, and is a far simpler solution than always-on DRM or passwords. It's worth noting that Sony has not confirmed the existence of the device, and the patent doesn't state what machine it will be used in, with later paragraphs also mentioning accessories and peripherals. ... There's also the issue of what happens should your console break and need replacing, or if you have more than one console. Will the games be linked to your PSN account, meaning they can still be used, or the console, meaning an entire new library of titles would need to be purchased?"
...customers do not (want to) know it and continue buying from these assholes.
Well, have a very nice fuck you year Sony.
All these DRM schemes are future-failures. More specifically, at some point in the future, you will be denied the game you purchased because of the DRM. Get a new console? Now you have to (somehow) reset your card so you can run it on the new console. Want to take it to a friends house? Pack up your console! Company goes out of business, or stops supporting it because it's obsolete? Say goodbye. In the future, old games won't be worth more because of rarity. They'll be worth more if you still have some way to make them work after their DRM scheme fails. Of course, it will be cracked. Quickly. Which is a GOOD thing.
Just don't buy anything by Sony.
because then I just need to continue to avoid SONY and it won't affect me.
So basically Sony want to do pretty much what Steam already does on the PC and people are saying "it doesn't work". Well guess what. It *does* work and chances are you're already using a service where you simply cannot resell games. As for the rest of the arguments, I heard them before. In 2003, when Steam went online. The world, amazingly did not end.
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
The War against its own Customers :S
They seem content swirling the drain...sad
This is Sony we are talking about here. Why would it even be a question? Of course you will need to buy a whole new catalog of games if your console breaks and needs to be replaced. Sony does not consider their customers to be individuals with whom they enter into agreements to reach mutually satisfying exchanges of goods and services. Sony views their customers as sheep to be fleeced. If you are not a sheep, don't do business with Sony! (I know a few people who are not sheep who do business with Sony, but they are people who are willing to put out the effort to take advantage of certain market conditions).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The 2nd hand market exists because the price of games are too high.
Half the price of games, enjoy more than double the profit. The more than double comes from the fact that more people will likely buy games who would normally only buy brand new games and zero used, and those people who would make more impulse buys of random games just to see if they would like them or not.
It isn't rocket surgery, there has been so many examples of this working and gaining a far higher profit than would be expected.
One hopes that such a system wouldn't be used to lock out entire games, but lock out only extra stuff, or cut out some game sequences that would make the story seem incomplete. But don't lock out the entire game, that's just dick-ish.
Me myself, I am part of the "only buys new games every other season and no used" side.
If games were half price, I would likely be able to buy more than 1.5 the games I normally could.
Your move, gaming industry.
So the competition will be less tempted to steal their IP, and I as well as surely many others can take their business to them!
Officially, screw you Sony. I will never, ever, over my dead body buy another product from you, or an affiliated company.
And to their patent lawyers, please, I beg you - Make the patent watertight.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
It's Sony. It's stupid. Why does anybody still buy their crap ? Why does anybody buy any sort of crap like this ?
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
There is a really simple solution to this. DO NOT BUY ANYTHING FROM SONY. Complain to magazines and web sites that review their stuff. If they ignore you then boycott that site / mag too. DONE. Don't bitch and whine about it. Don't wave your arms and scream it's unconstitutional while you stand in line to fork over $75.00 for the latest repackage of the same game you've already played 50 times. Just Freaking walk away! People really fail to grasp this. Don't bother to pirate their stuff. Sure this can be broken - but why? Treat them like they don't exist. Honest you WILL live without Sony. But Sony will NOT live without customers. Then if this actually matters to enough people Sony will become a responsible corporation and behave in polite society. If not then you will have taken the moral high ground anyway, and probably given your money to a responsible studio that doesn't treat its paying customers as mortal enemies. Had you rather be on the side of good - or play Killzone 15? Free choice. It cuts both ways.
Do not buy anything with Sony's name on it. Cast your vote with your spending dollars. If enough people oppose this, it will hit Sony where it hurts. Of course if most people don't care, Sony will probably get away with it and set a new low for the industry.
Always behind on technology, but on the cutting edge of evil.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Should be:
New Sony Patent on Blocking Second-hand Games
you to buy Sony toys? No? then STFU AND STOP BUYING THEM.
I just don't understand why people put up with this crap and don't just boycott Sony?
Personally I avoid all DRM and walled gardens like the plague for this very reason.
You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
This patent seems a bit pointless. The future lies in digital app stores.
The 2nd hand market exists because the price of games are too high.
Second hand markets will continue to exist, no matter what the price of the new product; so dropping the price of new games isn't going to solve that "problem". I do wonder what effect abolishing the second hand market would have on new games sales though - nievely you might say that new sales will increase because there is nolonger any competition, but that ignores the fact that the customer only has a finite amount of money. Lots of people fund their new purchases (in part) by selling stuff they no longer want, if they can't sell their old stuff they have less money to invest in new stuff. I'd certianly be less inclined to blow £50 on a game if I knew I could never sell it, and similarly less inclined to spend £hundreds on a console if I knew I could never buy any cheap games for it. (But then maybe I'm wrong - I'm not a gamer, I can think of far more fun things to do with my time and money than sit in a darkened room in front of a console for hours on end).
http://blog.nexusuk.org
A seller (store) is responsible that goods work for a reasonable time. Typically two years for electronic goods. A snag is that after six months, the buyer has to prove that the fault was present at time of purchase (within the first six months, the seller would have to prove that the fault was not present at the time of purchase).
I'd consider it a very clear fault if a game that I purchased doesn't work after I had to buy a replacement console for a broken one. And since the fault was intentionally built into the game, having to prove the fault was present is no problem. So stores in the UK and elsewhere in Europe will be very, very, very unhappy with this. I'd also consider it a serious fault if I can't sell a game because it doesn't work on the console of a prospective buyer.
I'm sure any attempt by Sony to prevent second-hand sales will be highly contested in court on the first sale principle. So if they persue this an injunction will be pushed through while it sits in the court.
The Wii U is not interesting to me, if the PS4 uses this I will not buy it and I flat out will not have Microsoft products in my house.
Maybe I should look into that OUYA thing slashdot keeps advertising.
So, I have seen the light and realize that Sony is a company that will do more harm to itself then good and therefore deserves to be losing the billions it does.
Sony's gaming division is the only thing Sony has left. They lost in the consumer electronics race for TV's, home audio, mobile audio, eBook readers. I mean the last 20 years of Sony's history has been about failure more then success. However I don't think Sony will create a decent product in the PS4 if this is the direction they are taking by creating consoles that will reject used games and require some kind of network registration to play a new game for the first time.
Sony should do one of two things, either sell off the hardware to Samsung, or sell off their entertainment divisions to Hollywood. By trying to be both a hardware manufacturer and content provider, Sony has always been at odds between trying to protect their content and creating innovative devices, they are failing to do both now.
Sony stopped trying to make the best products and instead are only succeeding in becoming the world's best asshole company, which is amazing given that Apple exists,
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Where have you been? C'mon... the walkman, trinitron ... minidisc!
Okay, sure minidisc wasn't popular in the US ... and they tried keeping CRTs around for too long due to trinitron ... but back in the 80s and 90s, Sony was way ahead in technology.
Even their laptops were considered years ahead in design 'til Apple put out the TiBook.
So, if you said 'behind on technology for the last 15 years', sure, I could agree ... but *always* behind? no. I mean, they had some of the most advanced rootkits for their time.
(in the bluray vs. hddvd wars, bluray wouldn't have won over HD-DVD if it hadn't taken payoffs to other companies and selling PS3s at a loss ... I refuse to change over to their crap format that just means that I'm forced to sit through 10 min of commercials every time I put in a disk)
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
The PS3 has been the top selling console in the world for over two years since the Wii started to rapidly fade in popularity.
Console gamers obviously are doing the exact opposite of what you are suggesting.
I avoid Sony products like the plague. I expect there is nothing that they could do at this point to change that. I wish everyone felt the same way.
IANAL, but I wonder if such a patent, assuming valid, would be legal to use in the US and other jurisdicitons. There is a lot of case law describing consumer sales and what one is allowed to do with what one purchases, including resale of said goods. While Sony might have a legal patent, it might not be legal to impliment it.
As I said, IANAL, but maybe somebody who is could chime in.
thanks for the compliment and fu-2.
Privacy is terrorism.
Just because a company patents an idea doesn't mean they have any intention if implementing it. Patents are cheap and potentially lucrative.
Sony have certainly looked into this, and they have the option to screw over their customers, but they also have to consider how it would appeal to their customers.
Now, this is Sony we're talking about who seem to relish in pissing off their customers but we should probably still wait until they try before making a big deal of it.
Gamestop stock dropped about $1.30 yesterday upon the news of this patent.
Citation
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
Of course, it will continue to exist, but nowhere near the size it is now.
People don't want to buy used games because it is the new hip thing, they do it out of necessity.
If games were cheap enough, they'd not need to buy used games and most likely would never need to resell games either.
That in turn could lead to more online and multiplayer games surviving for longer as people wouldn't want to resell the games much, if at all.
And stores wouldn't suffer as much as they'd make it out either, since by having cheaper games, more of those casual gamers would buy games too.
Wii game sales were pretty terrible overall, they got most of their profit from the consoles and a few games per console at best, simply because casual gamers are not willing to put down that much money per game.
And dealing with something used by someone else would seem even less popular with most casual gamers because they would think they would be in absolutely awful conditions or something like that.
Everyone benefits from half the game price of current games. But until those asses who only care about short-term large numbers die off, we will never get to that point. The industry will die again because of those morons.
Maybe if Valve release that Steambox thing or whatever it is with cheap prices will cause concern to other console devs and make them drop prices to try match.
I have high hopes for it, even if the idea of the steambox fails horribly, if it makes prices drop, it will be a huge success.
It doesn't need to be as expensive as it is. Apple and partially Nintendo have already proved that there are tens of millions of potential gamers out there just waiting to be brought in to gaming. Nintendo strategy failed in that they kept up with the same pricing scheme the rest of the industry was using too.
The games industry is horribly behind other media industries that sell their media at considerably lower prices, yet they still make up their sometimes HUGE budgets back quite often. If it hopes to expand, they are going to NEED to drop those prices. Gamers have money to spend, it is our hobby, our love. We'd give legs for games good enough. But try convince others to do the same.
This would not only kill the 2nt hand market, it would kill the rental market. I think Sony will find less people will buy a PS4 (if this as implemented in it) since they can't sell old games, buy used games, or rent games. Sure, the Hardcore PS fans will still buy the PS4 and new games, but only they will.
Plus if Sony thinks they will go 4 years before they new machine is hacked to play backups, they are in for a rude awakening. My guess is Sony will have a huge target on their back this round.
And this attitude that Sony has towards it's customers helped me quit playing EQ2 after 6 years. There was NO way I was going to pay them any more money for anything.
Be seeing you...
I think the 1980s called and Sony responded. The next thing they will patent is a portable tape recorder....
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I was similar growing up, except that instead of buying second hand I would rent NES games from the local box store (Phar-Mor in the 80's), similar to movie rentals before NetFlix and such. I suppose the modern-day equivalent would be GameFly, which would also be cut out w/ this.
So with this in mind, I guess I can no longer take my game with me to my friends house to play??? Instead I have to go through the hassle of unwiring my entire console and bringing the whole console with me? Or worse what happens if my game console needs to be warranty replaced? Now I have to buy all new games? Sounds like a load of crap.
Add to it the fact that Sony actually is in trouble together with Panasonic. They trying to make money by any means possible.
And I too avoid Sony due to their attitude against customers. Not that it's possible to do in every situation, but as far as it's possible.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
What happens when you lose the case or the chip is broken? Are you forced to buy another copy?
It seems to me that this would be hacked very quickly. After all, the DRM hackers out there seem to be a determined bunch when it comes to movies and games. There are a lot more of them, and they have more time, than programmers at Sony. You would have thought that Sony would have learned by now. Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids...
Little, laser-writable stickers that fit over the contactless patch on said games so that your console thinks the game is being played for the first time every time you put on a new sticker.
Even among the most avid Sony fans, most will probably balk at purchasing two or more copies of the same game for themselves. These fans have no reason, ZERO, to have more than one Sony console in their home. Nice move greedtards.
Thanks for the memories of Trinitron TVs, VCRs, transitor based radios and stereos. However Sony's brain dead corporate body is starting to stink badly. Please cremate or bury it soon.
I'm not a gamer, but I would still like to boycott Sony for this stupidity. The problem is, I can't. I'm already boycotting Sony for other previous acts of stupidity, such as, but not limited to, it's rootkit.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
There's a lot of Sony-hate swirling around the comments on this story. Believe me, I can understand that. This isn't exactly the most pro-consumer technology ever to have been patented (though as yet, Sony haven't said they intend to actually use the technology).
However, I actually see this as symtomatic of a wider problem for the video games industry; very few people are making money from it. Sony makes some pretty thumping losses these days; their gaming division is one of the better performing parts of the company, but it's still a long way from where it was in the last console generation. Nintendo's making some pretty big losses; it had to overturn a long-held hardware-at-a-profit business model to get any kind of installed base for the 3DS, has had to continue to sell at a loss on the Wii-U and faces an uncertain future of the Wii-U doesn't get traction. MS's situation isn't quite so bad, but its stock price has been flat for a decade and if it had the same currency issues that its Japanese competitors face, then its situation might be just as bad as theirs.
The situation's hardly any better in the land of games development. Big developers like EA struggle to turn a profit despite trying every trick they can think of (day-one DLC, online passes, season passes etc). Their few guaranteed cash-cows like the annualised sports series and modern military shooters are basically the only reason that the more interesting games they put out can continue to appear. Mid-sized shops like THQ which don't have those cash cows are in very unpleasant places indeed. A couple of companies like Zynga and Rovio manage to get-rich-quick on the basis of low-budget titles that strike it lucky with the zeitgeist, but they increasingly look like one-hit wonders. And for every indie studio that produces a hit, there are 99 that produce forgettable garbage before vanishing into obscurity. It's even worse over in Japan, where all but a few of their developers have given up on true global competition, focussing instead on the same domestic kids-and-otaku market that most anime is produced for. Some people are clutching at free-to-play/pay-to-win as a potential solution, but that bubble's already bursting.
And retail? Here in the UK, our biggest specialised retailer (Game) went into administration during 2012. Sure, it got rescued, but it doesn't seem to be doing particularly well since then either. Its most direct competitor (HMV) looks like it won't survive the next few months.
Make no mistake, stuff like this latest Sony patent isn't thought up by plutocrats sipping champagne as they lounge on top of a Scrooge McDuck style lake of gold. These are desperate moves to stay afloat in what's become, over the last 3 years or so, a very unfriendly industry.
People moan about the price of games, but these are, in real terms, substantially lower than they were a couple of decades ago, when development costs were a fraction of what they are today. What I'd actually welcome is a company which is prepared to say: "We won't do any of this evil stuff like anti-resale measures or day-one DLC - but for those games with high development costs, we will accordingly charge a higher price than you've gotten used to paying". The prices of Wii-U games are noticably higher than those for the older platforms - but unfortunately, most of them are very thin pickings compared to other games, or are already available on other platforms with a much lower price.
seriously, ring of death and all (ok, that was MS, but Sony surely has an equivalent) what happens to my games then?
So lets say on the odd chance my new playstation dies in a fire or implodes or something these new fancy consoles like to do, and i am forced to replace it with another. Technically this is another console, so are you saying i have to buy the same games i already own again? Or is this going to be more similar to Steam. Using keycodes with the disks that are assigned to a users account, so all they need is a user id and password to play their games anywhere. Next question is, would you still need to have the disk to play it once its been registered to you? Honestly i this this idea is DUMB. You will put gamestop and game rental companies out of business. People will eventually find a way past the DRM so theres no use in even trying. Plus i still like to trade games with some of my friends for a few days to see if i even like the game before i buy it. Leave the DRM bullcrap and game linking to the PC world, this sort of thing doesn't belong on a console. Sony, IMHO if you want to restrict people to what they can and cant do on a gaming console, not many people will buy your console, this is a very bad move.
So ... I can go into a game store with a RFID reader/writer, and program all the RFIDs on the unsold games? Okay, I'm sure there is some security, but that'll be hacked fairly quickly, as any security based around two devices you have in your hands (console with rfid reader/writer, rfid tagged item) is.
What is good about this patent, is that someone has patented it, and hopefully will not license it. That means all the other platforms can't use this method of preventing people exercising their right to resale.
OTOH if the RFID tag had enough memory, you could store game-specific data on it (saves, character saves, etc) and carry them between consoles just by taking the disc. But that is a completely different end use of the tag than this patent describes.
Companies that use such draconian DRM and treat their customer like this are one of the major causes of mass piracy of games. I believe the publisher should be held accountable in some way for causing the growth of pirated software.
pure and simple Greed.
I'm pretty lucky so far, I have almost always had a great experience with Sony Products. Reading this patent I am seriously considering never buying Sony again. This is completely unfair to the consumer and it is very disappointing. I'm one of those consumers who always bought her games. 1st and 2nd hand when I couldn't find it new. It was because of the 2nd hand market that I would seek out new releases of games I normally would not have played 1st hand.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
The 'first sale doctrine' means that items you buy outright (and this includes software) can later be sold by the purchaser. Why does Sony think it can get away with this?
Well they are relying on a common trick- namely persuade your customers to think themselves 'lawyers' and then turn their misunderstandings against them.
Case in point. Most brain-dead nerds on Slashdot think all pay-once, use forever software is LICENSED. Being morons, they do not comprehend the legal meaning of a license. That PC game or home copy on Windows8 is no more bought under 'license' than that book or CD you bought.
A real 'license' means SERVICE and ongoing payments. When you stop paying, or the agreed license period is over, you can no longer use the service. Some software is used under this form of NON-PURCHASE contract, but almost never the software purchased by ordinary people. A company does not get to mis-describe its sold items as 'licensed' items in law, regardless of what it tells the purchaser.
No ongoing payments to use the 'service', or agreed usage period = first sale doctrine applies.
We've been here before. In the early days of Nintendo consoles, Nintendo placed notices in computer stores informing the customers that they no longer had the right to return faulty merchandise for a refund. Apparently, trading standards laws didn't apply to Nintendo. Well, when challenged, Nintendo lost in court, each and every time. They didn't care- they were about creating a false 'new reality' in the minds of nerds- nerds who would then go on to rant about how unreasonable it was to expect to get refunds on faulty software. The law was on the side of the customer, but Nintendo felt their was an advantage in winning a propaganda war.
The idiots that spout rubbish about ordinary copies of games and applications being 'licensed' not bought are doing the same work for the corporations. These software publishers then attempt to buy the politicians to build momentum for the false reality. Fortunately, the courts (at the highest level) take a very dim view of these shenanigans. These courts don't listen to the dribble from nerds. Instead, they apply the same simple tests.
Have you bought this game outright. Are you allowed to continue using it without (agreed) further payments? Did this game come with a specific termination date at point of purchase? If a piece of software is purchased and used like a book, it may as well be a book from the standpoint of law.
Sony is free to turn its software into legally recognised services, and legally gain the control it wishes. Despite the dribbling of nerds, it CANNOT do this with mumbo-jumbo in the 'license'. No, Sony must clearly RENT its software, with recurring costs and finite use periods, agreed at the point at which the service commences. Sony is free to do this, but knows such actions would be suicide in the marketplace (I mean 'rent only' as opposed to rent as an option).
Just as Instgram could NEVER gain ownership of your photos, despite what they may say in their TOS, the 'first sale doctrine' hammer is going to fall on the heads of all software publishers that try to deny their customers their legal rights, despite what you dribbling nerds may think you know.
despite trying every trick they can think of (day-one DLC, online passes, season passes etc).
Well, I don't know about the rest of the world, but among those I know a lot of the so-call "tricks" you've mentioned are the REASON that we don't buy games these days, or at the very least not day-one releases at full price.
Maybe it's a surprise, but... people like to own stuff they pay for. Notice that the "so-called" American dream isn't to "rent a nice place", but to own one's house and property (this applies beyond USA of course, but is used as example).
Beyond that, the money-chasing behaviour actually drives away customers. Always-on DRM is a turn-off for many, many gamers. Even the less hardcore crowd are starting to get pissed off that the newest $70 of "sports game X" really doesn't offer much improvement, but their older copy has suddenly lost the ability to play online with buddies.
It used to be you could pull up a chair and play with a group of buddies on equal footing (mechanics wise). Now you're stuck with shared-servers full of potty-mouthed teams, having to play for hours to gain "experience" in order to even be competitive. Oh, but wait, you could get "big gun X" without having to play for a few days straight, all you have to do is... pay more money.
People are tired of it. Yes, some people will still buy the console, but overall this sort of shit, these "tricks" are what drive away customers. Game prices aren't really that different from the old days, however anyone who cared with an old console can still pop in an old Mario cart and play with a bunch of friends, or you can load up an old PC game so long it runs on whatever OS you're running.
How about if you bought a windows PC that was automatically cut off the internet after 3 years? What if you had to drive your car around a track for 30 hours in order to unlock the stereo (optionally available for $150 extra)?
Game makers will try everything, but actual innovation or listening to fans seems to be the *LAST* thing they try. That's why kickstarter campaigns are getting some fairly surprising capital, and even a graphically simple game like Minecraft is a sneak-hit.
Like the world needed yet another reason not to buy Sony products. I personally, in just the recent year, consciously did not buy the following superior-quality Sony products, opting instead for their competitors: headphones, camera, LED TV. Just because they were Sony.
Bow before me, for I am root.
Guys, I think the market has already shown it's willingness to put up with this model through the rise of digital distribution. You already can't sell used games bought on the PSN, XBox Live, Steam, or any other digital distributor of games. And these services are super popular.
Anyone crying about having to re-buy your games when you get a new console is inventing a bug in a system doesn't exist yet, and that's clearly just dumb. They already let you associate a new PS3 with your PSN account be ready do download all your PSN titles again in a snap, no re-buying necessary. Pretty sure that would extend to this possibly non-existent future disc non-product that they're not selling or even manufacturing yet too.
And actually if it worked, it would likely cut down on having to re-buy games because this way they can allow people to download games they bought on disc so they don't have to buy it again if they ever lost it.
Also if it worked, it would also make stealing someone's games pointless, because they wouldn't be able to play it. That's a plus.
Really though, its pretty obvious they're not trying to dick their customers, they're trying to prevent piracy. They're trying to prevent what happened to the Nintendo DS with their products.
I'm not sure they'd actually release discs like this, but I would miss being able to swap games with other people, and I suppose being able to buy/sell on Craigslist or something, but I rarely do either of those anyway.
And GameStop can rot in hell, so... Meh. Poor GameFly I guess, but other than that I don't see any real news here.
This is *your* fault for making Steam, PSN,and XBL so popular. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Every day, grab one patent attorney and cut his or her fucking head off and post it on YouTube. Every day. Until their behavior improves.
Sony was already on my boycott list with Activision, Apple, and Walmart. But here is a list of their subsidiaries from wikipedia.
Bet it does the opposite and drives more people to the pirate versions as they will most likely work better with less hassle.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
All this will do is hasten the return of PC gaming. Especially with the surprisingly good F2P out there. Look at World of Tanks, (and the beta World of Warplanes, lotta fun there), Then checkout Hawken and MechWarrior Online for a little giant robot battle action (ok not really robots).
Granted you can spend money on these games but you don't gain any real advantage (besides faster xp and credit accumulation).
Screw the Consoles and their ridiculous DRM.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
This sort of evil empire attitude makes me really not want to buy Sony stuff.
I suspect second hand markets will also reduce piracy. Making games only available at full price and disallowing even lending of game media will just encourage people to find a different way to get the game.
The problem is that game makers have seen that there used to be a huge market in both resold games as well as previously owned games (ie, not sold but given way or traded). These weren't always new games, in fact very rarely were these current games. But something a year or two old has lost its initial premium pricing which is where being able to buy it at half price is nice. (I have noticed that physical copies of games drop in price much faster than digital only games, even on Steam which so many claim to be inexpensive, I used to find find retail copies of Steam games to be cheaper than online purchases, though Valve does seem to be improving a bit here).
So the makers have figured out that DRM will lock out game trades and resales and shrink the second hand market as much as possible. Once the legal second hand markets give up then the only thing left will be the illegal second hand markets.
No doubt there is a widespread problem in the industry if they are not making a profit now. But as you said they were making a profit in the past. So it's time to consider what has changed?
Is it piracy? Nope the PS3 never had a piracy problem.
Is it a rise in second hand sales? Nope, if Game Stop's numbers are any sign there's been quarter on quarter shrinkage in the used game trading market.
That leaves a few other external possibilities:
People don't spend money on shit during a financial crisis. The fancy disc lock won't fix that.
The titles being released are boring. There's certainly signs of that given the number of games that came out last year with a number after them. And sorry I can't get excited about yet another Fifa game. The fancy disc lock won't fix that.
People are getting their fun elsewhere? This I can easily believe. It's been a long time since I spent money on a AAA gaming title. It's also been a long time since a AAA gaming title has provided me anywhere near as much enduring fun as a simple challenging arcade game purchased off Steam. When people ask what game I recommend and I spit out some title which can be had for under $10, that's not a good sign for the big name market. The fancy disc lock won't fix that.
Sure the industry is in the toilet but it's because the drain is plugged and the execs can't figure out that maybe it's time to start shitting somewhere else. This outcome has been predicted by analysts for years. Rovio didn't get rich striking luck with the zeitgeist, they got rich exploiting a market that didn't exist and was utterly ignored by the big titles: casual and simple arcade style games.
- Anybody can apply for a patent for anything. So what? That doesn't mean a patent will ever be granted. Also, since patent prosecution is a process of negotiation it makes sense for an applicant to start from an extreme position and then negotiate down to something far more narrow. Just because you file a million-dollar suit against me because my dog crapped on your lawn doesn't mean that you'll prevail -- or that the tort system "doesn't work."
ii) A story describes a patent claim that contains a ridiculously general and obvious element, but the story never cites the entire claim.
- A patent claim protects an invention against an infringement that incorporates *every* element of the claim. So a claim that begins "a software method for moving a cursor on a screen,,," doesn't necessarily protect all methods of moving cursors on a screen. Unfortunately, Slashdot stories (and the idiotic stories it references on sites like Groklaw) sometimes fail to make that critical distinction. The only way to know the actual scope of a patent is to read the claims yourself. In the overwhelming majority of cases, doing so reveals that the breathless outrage expressed by a Slashdot story bears no relation to reality.
iii) A story misrepresents a design patent as a utility patent (often because the author doesn't even know the difference).
- A design patent on a uniquely shaped computer case does *NOT* patent the computer itself. A design patent on a page shape displayed on a monitor when a user electronically turns a page does *NOT* patent the concept of turning pages. Duh.
*Most* stories about patent law published on Slashdot are wrong or misleading. Regardless of whether the patent system is "broken," relying on the factoids reported in this forum to argue your position will often make you look silly to anyone who is actually familiar with the system. Here are three reasons why:
i) (As here), Slashdot stories often conflate a patent application with an issued patent.
- Anybody can apply for a patent for anything. So what? That doesn't mean a patent will ever be granted. Also, since patent prosecution is a process of negotiation, it makes sense for an applicant to start from an extreme position and then negotiate down to something far more narrow. Just because you file a million-dollar suit against me because my dog crapped on your lawn doesn't mean that you'll prevail -- or that the tort system "doesn't work."
ii) /. stories often describe a patent claim that contains a ridiculously general and obvious element, but never consider the entire claim.
- A patent claim protects an invention against an infringement that incorporates *every* element of the claim. So a claim that begins "a software method for moving a cursor on a screen,,," doesn't necessarily protect all methods of moving cursors on a screen. Unfortunately, Slashdot stories (and the sloppy stories it references on sites like Groklaw) sometimes fail to make that critical distinction. The only way to know the actual scope of a patent is to read the actual claims in their entirety yourself. If you don't, you may be relying on idiots, since no one on the Slashdot staff seems to vet the patent-law stories it publishes. In the overwhelming majority of cases, even a quick readthrough reveals that the breathless outrage expressed by such a Slashdot story bears no relation to reality.
iii) A story misrepresents a design patent as a utility patent (often because the author doesn't even know the difference).
- A design patent on a uniquely shaped computer case does *NOT* patent the computer itself. A design patent on a page shape displayed on a monitor when a user electronically turns a page does *NOT* patent the concept of turning pages. Duh.