Certain Pre-Owned Games Can Be Blocked on the PS4!!

[wulf3n]

All the Sony representative said was that on the PS4 (as with every device with an internet connection), there's nothing the manufacturer can do to prevent software publishers from doing that.

There's a big difference between publishers using internet connectivity to restrict access, and Sony implementing specific functionality to allow publishers to block used games.

Now I haven't been able to confirm if Sony has implemented said technology, all I've found so far is rumour regarding a patent.

 

[Epona]

Pre-owned games don't help my favorite developers

Amazing that after so many debates on this site that any escapist member can believe this.

1) People trade in games and buy new games. This helps the sales of new games.

2) People buy previous games in a franchise used and sometimes this creates a new purchase for the next game in the franchise.

 

[wulf3n]

Why would this affect my decision to get a PS4? I'm still getting it at launch. If you have a job then either buy the game through the online network (PSN) or retail when you can afford to while not ignoring your other priorities. I have no problem paying $59.99 for every PS4 game; if anything it'll make me more selective and I'll stop blind impulse-buying.

Pre-owned games don't help my favorite developers and I want to support them however I can. If you're tight on cash, not working, then gaming shouldn't be a top priority, buy them when you can. Don't be cheap.

So basically you're saying.

"F*** Off! poor people you don't belong here" and "Rights? Meh, I'm not using them, you can have them back, you wouldn't screw me over right?"

:|

 

[RedDeadFred]

It must suck when you make a thread that tries to rally people against a certain product but then instead end up getting all of those people to turn against you.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

You know, consoles aren't PC's. You can't do anything on a console that Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft do not allow. So I guess I would like someone to show me that the big three would be ok with this, this gen.

EA's Origin uses activation codes to prevent resell, why wouldn't they have done that on current gen consoles already if the big three were ok with it?

The big three are already okay with preventing the resale of the multiplayer component of a game. And really, I was speaking to the technical side of things. There is nothing about current consoles which prevents doing what companies have already done for multiplayer content for the entire game. Absolutely nothing. Whether the console manufacturers are okay with it is another story, but they're already demonstrating that they probably don't care both by allowing things like multiplayer passes (essentially preventing straight resale of half a game), and statements such as that by Sony saying that it's up to the publishers (and let's not kid ourselves here; if they're saying it's up to the publishers for the PS4, then it's up to the publishers right now on the PS3).

Just because Sony gave in to the publishers with the PS4 doesn't mean they allow it on the PS3, else we would have seen it by now.

I really don't understand what's not to get. You buy game. Game has content on it. The publisher can block your content unless you register it online using a code on your game manual. Once that code registers, the company doesn't have to let anyone use that code again. We call this "on disk DLC". There no difference between blocking some content and blocking all of it. Its the difference between locking the door to your bathroom or the front door of your house. The reason they don't is because, surprise! Despite what everyone is saying consumers have more power than some might think. If a publisher said "yeah, from now on if you buy games from us you can't sell them again" a lot of people will say "Well, golly gee. I guess I won't buy their games anymore."

 

[Epona]

You know, consoles aren't PC's. You can't do anything on a console that Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft do not allow. So I guess I would like someone to show me that the big three would be ok with this, this gen.

EA's Origin uses activation codes to prevent resell, why wouldn't they have done that on current gen consoles already if the big three were ok with it?

The big three are already okay with preventing the resale of the multiplayer component of a game. And really, I was speaking to the technical side of things. There is nothing about current consoles which prevents doing what companies have already done for multiplayer content for the entire game. Absolutely nothing. Whether the console manufacturers are okay with it is another story, but they're already demonstrating that they probably don't care both by allowing things like multiplayer passes (essentially preventing straight resale of half a game), and statements such as that by Sony saying that it's up to the publishers (and let's not kid ourselves here; if they're saying it's up to the publishers for the PS4, then it's up to the publishers right now on the PS3).

Just because Sony gave in to the publishers with the PS4 doesn't mean they allow it on the PS3, else we would have seen it by now.

I really don't understand what's not to get. You buy game. Game has content on it. The publisher can block your content unless you register it online using a code on your game manual. Once that code registers, the company doesn't have to let anyone use that code again. We call this "on disk DLC". There no difference between blocking some content and blocking all of it. Its the difference between locking the door to your bathroom or the front door of your house. The reason they don't is because, surprise! Despite what everyone is saying consumers have more power than some might think. If a publisher said "yeah, from now on if you buy games from us you can't sell them again" a lot of people will say "Well, golly gee. I guess I won't buy their games anymore."

What I am saying is that IF Sony wanted to block publishers from doing this, they could. The real power (aside from consumers) lies with the big three, not with the publishers. If Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo don't want something on their system (didn't Microsoft turn down FF14 because they didn't want an MMO on the 360) they can block it.

Now, I don't think you will ever see anti-used technology used on a Nintendo console or handheld because I don't think Nintendo would allow it.

In short, if Sony allows it, they are just as culpable as the publisher who implements it.

 

[ClockworkUniverse]

So, basically, publishers are still capable of doing a thing that they have always been capable of doing on any system with internet connectivity, but people really want to be able to make an attention getting headline (or forum post title, as the case may be) out of it.

Are you sure they have always been able to do it?

Yes. You know online passes? It's the same thing, only instead of blocking some small amount of content for people who didn't have the code, it would mean blocking the whole game. All the Sony representative said was that on the PS4 (as with every device with an internet connection), there's nothing the manufacturer can do to prevent software publishers from doing that.

The reason they haven't done it yet is because nowhere near all consoles are actually connected, so doing this would mean preventing a large portion of the market from connecting, and I see no reason to think this will change with the next generation (since selling a new console won't magically make people have more or better internet connections).

You truly see no distinction between blocking the multiplayer part of the game and blocking the entire game? There is no justification for blocking single player since single player doesn't have server costs (unless they create those costs with activation codes).

Anyway, you really believe publishers can do anything they want with a console and the console manufacturer has no controlling power?

There's no technological distinction. If it is possible for the publisher to block a portion of a game's content, the same method allows it to block all of the content. It's a big difference in terms of the product, but the functionality is the same.

 

[wulf3n]

If a publisher said "yeah, from now on if you buy games from us you can't sell them again" a lot of people will say "Well, golly gee. I guess I won't buy their games anymore."

I don't think they would. Given some of the responses from this thread and the general attitude towards steam, If a publisher played their cards right, I doubt many people would actually boycott. Sure there'd be a lot of talk, but few would actually follow through.

edit:

In short, if Sony allows it, they are just as culpable as the publisher who implements it.

This I disagree with.

By this logic GoG.com is just as culpable as pirates regarding piracy as they remove DRM, which is just plain stupid![edit: likening GoG to pirates, not removing DRM]

Just because someone isn't doing everything possible to stop said behaviour does not automatically mean they support it.

However! If Sony have implemented new features making it easier for developers to restrict access, then yes they'll have supported the behaviour and would be considered just as culpable. Though no proof of this has surfaced, as far as I'm aware.

 

[00slash00]

i dont care about hard ware or whether or not i can play used games (i try to buy my games new as much as possible anyway). the only thing im basing my opinion of this system on is the games. does the ps4 have any games i wanna play? no, not really. but we dont really know much about the system yet. if the ps4 gets a few exclusives that i really want, ill probably throw down for a ps4. and ill have no problem buying the games new

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

You know, consoles aren't PC's. You can't do anything on a console that Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft do not allow. So I guess I would like someone to show me that the big three would be ok with this, this gen.

EA's Origin uses activation codes to prevent resell, why wouldn't they have done that on current gen consoles already if the big three were ok with it?

The big three are already okay with preventing the resale of the multiplayer component of a game. And really, I was speaking to the technical side of things. There is nothing about current consoles which prevents doing what companies have already done for multiplayer content for the entire game. Absolutely nothing. Whether the console manufacturers are okay with it is another story, but they're already demonstrating that they probably don't care both by allowing things like multiplayer passes (essentially preventing straight resale of half a game), and statements such as that by Sony saying that it's up to the publishers (and let's not kid ourselves here; if they're saying it's up to the publishers for the PS4, then it's up to the publishers right now on the PS3).

Just because Sony gave in to the publishers with the PS4 doesn't mean they allow it on the PS3, else we would have seen it by now.

I really don't understand what's not to get. You buy game. Game has content on it. The publisher can block your content unless you register it online using a code on your game manual. Once that code registers, the company doesn't have to let anyone use that code again. We call this "on disk DLC". There no difference between blocking some content and blocking all of it. Its the difference between locking the door to your bathroom or the front door of your house. The reason they don't is because, surprise! Despite what everyone is saying consumers have more power than some might think. If a publisher said "yeah, from now on if you buy games from us you can't sell them again" a lot of people will say "Well, golly gee. I guess I won't buy their games anymore."

What I am saying is that IF Sony wanted to block publishers from doing this, they could. The real power (aside from consumers) lies with the big three, not with the publishers. If Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo don't want something on their system (didn't Microsoft turn down FF14 because they didn't want an MMO on the 360) they can block it.

Now, I don't think you will ever see anti-used technology used on a Nintendo console or handheld because I don't think Nintendo would allow it.

In short, if Sony allows it, they are just as culpable as the publisher who implements it.

No they can't. Well, sort of. Sony could refuse to let publishers make games for unless they didn't use anti-used game codes. But they wouldn't do that. They aren't in a position to make demands of their publishers. Also, all the data on a game's disk and all its locks and keys are put there buy the publisher/developer. All it needs is an Internet connection for anti-used game stuff to work.

Basically its not that Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo are allowing these measures so much they aren't actively stopping it. If I was developing for a console I would probably prefer to work with one that wouldn't be so intrusive when it comes to permissions like Internet access and whatnot. Moreover, it would literally be like running a business and refusing to sell to some people unless they met your picky demands.

I really don't think this will be a problem. Publishers didn't do it before and I'm sure a select minority would only do this now. Even if it was, I couldn't care less because I either buy games new or download them

 

[Epona]

If a publisher said "yeah, from now on if you buy games from us you can't sell them again" a lot of people will say "Well, golly gee. I guess I won't buy their games anymore."

I don't think they would. Given some of the responses from this thread and the general attitude towards steam, If a publisher played their cards right, I doubt many people would actually boycott. Sure there'd be a lot of talk, but few would actually follow through.

edit:

In short, if Sony allows it, they are just as culpable as the publisher who implements it.

This I disagree with.

By this logic GoG.com is just as culpable as pirates regarding piracy as they remove DRM, which is just plain stupid![edit: likening GoG to pirates, not removing DRM]

Just because someone isn't doing everything possible to stop said behaviour does not automatically mean they support it.

However! If Sony have implemented new features making it easier for developers to restrict access, then yes they'll have supported the behaviour and would be considered just as culpable. Though no proof of this has surfaced, as far as I'm aware.

Comparing GoG to Sony makes no sense to me. Things are different on PC than they are on console.

A console manufacturer has COMPLETE control over what they allow publishers to do with their console. It's simply not a matter of Sony being powerless.

 

[wulf3n]

Comparing GoG to Sony makes no sense to me.

A console manufacturer has COMPLETE control over what they allow publishers to do with their console. It's simply not a matter of Sony being powerless.

I'm merely pointing out the stupidity of the "If they're not with us, they're against us" mentality and COMPLETE control is never good, in fact it's the danger of COMPLETE control of Sony and the Publishers that's the point of this thread.

Things are different on PC than they are on console.

How So?

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

If a publisher said "yeah, from now on if you buy games from us you can't sell them again" a lot of people will say "Well, golly gee. I guess I won't buy their games anymore."

I don't think they would. Given some of the responses from this thread and the general attitude towards steam, If a publisher played their cards right, I doubt many people would actually boycott. Sure there'd be a lot of talk, but few would actually follow through.

I didn't really mean a boycott but there is obviously a large number of people out there who buy games new and turn around and immediately sell them. It doesn't seem very economical to me but if I didn't want to keep a huge library of games and didn't plan on keeping them, I would be missing out on a huge amount of money I couldn't turn around and sell them.

I'm saying it might not be possible with some people's budgets to not have the option to sell their games.

 

[Epona]

How So?

PC is an open market whereas the console is not. EA can release their games with any lock they want on PC but on console those locks have to be approved by the console manufacturer.

Did you know that Sony locked the PSP to 2/3 of the full clock speed until 2007?

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/15/did-you-know-333mhz-is-officially-unlocked/

This is what I am talking about. What happens with a console or a handheld is completely in the control of the manufacturer. Sony is obviously allowing these locks and to me, that makes them as culpable as the publisher who implements it.

I'll bet that we will see these anti-used locks on the PS4 and the 720 but not on the WiiU and that would be because Nintendo won't allow it.

 

[wulf3n]

If a publisher said "yeah, from now on if you buy games from us you can't sell them again" a lot of people will say "Well, golly gee. I guess I won't buy their games anymore."

I don't think they would. Given some of the responses from this thread and the general attitude towards steam, If a publisher played their cards right, I doubt many people would actually boycott. Sure there'd be a lot of talk, but few would actually follow through.

I didn't really mean a boycott but there is obviously a large number of people out there who buy games new and turn around and immediately sell them. It doesn't seem very economical to me but if I didn't want to keep a huge library of games and didn't plan on keeping them, I would be missing out on a huge amount of money I couldn't turn around and sell them.

I'm saying it might not be possible with some people's budgets to not have the option to sell their games.

I see your point.

It's funny when I've thought about the sale of used games, I've really only ever thought of it from the buying side, not the selling side, and I guess that's why Steam works, it's so cheap people don't really mind that they can't sell.

 

[wulf3n]

PC is an open market whereas the console is not. EA can release their games with any lock they want on PC but on console those locks have to be approved by the console manufacturer.

Do they? [that's a serious question BTW, I honestly don't know the power Microsoft/Sony have over Publishers, if you have evidence I would love to see it]

The only console company I know of that's really enforced any sort of restrictions on 3rd party developers/publishers is Nintendo [like you mentioned earlier] which hasn't really worked too well for them as not many companies want to put up with all the crap, which is, as far as I'm aware, why Nintendo consoles have fewer 3rd party games, and fewer games is bad for everyone.

 

[Olas]

Well all I can say is any publishers doing this can count out my financial support.

 

[Smeggs]

I'll just refuse to buy any games that publishers choose to do this with. If you're not going to even give the trust to your consumers to buy your game, if you don't have enough faith in your product that not enough people will buy it new, then why the hell should I buy a product that the creators felt wasn't good enough to do well on its own?

I will not be forced to buy a game new or not at all. I'm not a fucking child to be lead around by the ear.

If Microsoft chooses not to do this, that will easily decide my choice between either next-gen console.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

How So?

PC is an open market whereas the console is not. EA can release their games with any lock they want on PC but on console those locks have to be approved by the console manufacturer.

Did you know that Sony locked the PSP to 2/3 of the full clock speed until 2007?

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/15/did-you-know-333mhz-is-officially-unlocked/

This is what I am talking about. What happens with a console or a handheld is completely in the control of the manufacturer. Sony is obviously allowing these locks and to me, that makes them as culpable as the publisher who implements it.

I'll bet that we will see these anti-used locks on the PS4 and the 720 but not on the WiiU and that would be because Nintendo won't allow it.

*sigh*. Yes, your psp article proved that console manufacturer has complete and utter control over its HARDWARE. A console cannot simply magically alter the software of whatever is put into the machine. And no, pc's and consoles are not that different when it comes to how "open" the market is. Its "openness" is determined by whether or not you have money to get a game published. Obviously, its much easier to develop for something like Windows pc because you have easy access to the necessary tools and a distribution method.

 

[Epona]

PC is an open market whereas the console is not. EA can release their games with any lock they want on PC but on console those locks have to be approved by the console manufacturer.

Do they? [that's a serious question BTW, I honestly don't know the power Microsoft/Sony have over Publishers, if you have evidence I would love to see it]

The only console company I know of that's really enforced any sort of restrictions on 3rd party developers/publishers is Nintendo [like you mentioned earlier] which hasn't really worked too well for them as not many companies want to put up with all the crap, which is, as far as I'm aware, why Nintendo consoles have fewer 3rd party games, and fewer games is bad for everyone.

In the post you quoted there was a link to show that Sony wouldn't allow developers to go over 222MHz on the PSP until 2007.