Poll: PS4, Xbox One and Used Games

[TomWiley]

So I stumbled over this:
http://segmentnext.com/2013/11/11/playstation-4-terms-service-updated-sony-can-terminate-software-license-time/

So according to the article, Sony can restrict used games.
And by restrict, we mean that Sony and publishers can restrict your ability to trade in your disc-based games. Totally fair right?

If the anonymous comment section is to be believed, it's a fairly standard juridical condition that even the PS3's terms had. But then, what was the deal with the whole Xbox One used games controversy? The original Xbox One didn't restrict used games by default, but rather allowed developers the right to restrict it [http://www.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/1g8t5e/lets_clear_up_the_issues_used_games_kinect/ ]. You know, kinda like Sony's discreetly announced software policy quoted in the article.

Yeah, there were other things: The online verification, obviously, but Microsof's received just as much criticism for their used games policies. At least that's what Escapist [http://www.forbes.com/sites/nigamarora/2013/06/19/microsoft-gives-in-to-gamers-on-xbox-one-used-games-connection-requirement/ ] told me. (most major tech sites really). The consensus was simple; Microsoft tried to cheat us out of used games.

So what's going on here? Can we add used games to the long list of Xbone related misconceptions together with the Orwellian Kinect paranoia and the whole "family sharing was all about glorified demos" thing?

 

[TehCookie]

So how about not buying titles the company only licenses? People Console owners obviously don't like the idea of a corporation having the power over the games they bought, so we should speak with out money and not buy it. I'm hoping it will be as used as much as the PS3's region locking.

Also if I remember correctly wasn't the Xbone and it's DRM an opt-out system instead of an opt-in?

 

[TomWiley]

So how about not buying titles the company only licenses? People Console owners obviously don't like the idea of a corporation having the power over the games they bought, so we should speak with out money and not buy it. I'm hoping it will be as used as much as the PS3's region locking.

Also if I remember correctly wasn't the Xbone and it's DRM an opt-out system instead of an opt-in?

Well according to Microsoft, it was "in" by default. And I would presume Microsoft is an authority on Microsoft

 

[Genocidicles]

They could potentially kill a used game, but there is one thing stopping them:

There is no online requirement for the PS4. There is a big day 1 patch, but it isn't needed to play games.

But anyway, yeah: No online, no way of them telling which game is used and which isn't. Unless it's a multiplayer game or something.

 

[DarkSpartan]

E en then, that stipulation is most certainly part of the "boilerplate" on pretty much every piece of software since Sir Bill of Gates managed to use them to carve his Empire out of everyone's pocket.

All Software is licensed, not sold, which means you acquire rights to use the Software, as described in these Terms, but you do not acquire ownership of the Software. If you do not comply with these Terms, we can terminate your Software License which means you will no longer have the right to use the Software.

Go check your Win7 license. Or any of the myriad other licenses on your computer. Unless you get every piece of soft for your machine from the FSF, good money says those precise words are lying about in there somewhere.

As for the rest, it's a clause that is unenforceable, as they don't have a technology in operation to track disks. Even if they do, that request is considered made and granted unless Sony has some legal reason to do otherwise. (Ubisoft demands it) and you have to jump through the Publisher's hoops. This is a tempest in a teacup, and will pass in the night.

 

[TehCookie]

Also if I remember correctly wasn't the Xbone and it's DRM an opt-out system instead of an opt-in?

Well according to Microsoft, it was "in" by default. And I would presume Microsoft is an authority on Microsoft

The original Xbox One didn't restrict used games by default, but rather allowed developers the right to restrict it [http://www.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/1g8t5e/lets_clear_up_the_issues_used_games_kinect/ ]. You know, kinda like Sony's discreetly announced software policy quoted in the article.

I'm getting mixed signals here. Besides Sony didn't say it had default DRM, but it has the possibility of DRM. That's why I compared it to their region locking, because the system is able to region lock games but the majority don't. The reverse is true with the Xbox. There were a handful of region free games, but the default was region locked.

 

[TomWiley]

Also if I remember correctly wasn't the Xbone and it's DRM an opt-out system instead of an opt-in?

Well according to Microsoft, it was "in" by default. And I would presume Microsoft is an authority on Microsoft

The original Xbox One didn't restrict used games by default, but rather allowed developers the right to restrict it [http://www.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/1g8t5e/lets_clear_up_the_issues_used_games_kinect/ ]. You know, kinda like Sony's discreetly announced software policy quoted in the article.

I'm getting mixed signals here. Besides Sony didn't say it had default DRM, but it has the possibility of DRM. That's why I compared it to their region locking, because the system is able to region lock games but the majority don't. The reverse is true with the Xbox. There were a handful of region free games, but the default was region locked.

To the best of my knowledge, both systems would default to "no restrictions", unless the publisher or Sony specifically defined the game otherwise.

 

[TehCookie]

To the best of my knowledge, both systems would default to "no restrictions", unless the publisher or Sony specifically defined the game otherwise.

Currently yes, but originally it wasn't like that so your OP is wrong.

People hated the original Xbone because it was restricted by default. That was the deal with the used games controversy. That is how the Xbone was different than the PS4. Yes they changed it so now it is the same, but it wasn't at first.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

And I would presume Microsoft is an authority on Microsoft

You'd think so, but if that was the case you'd also presume that we could get some concrete fucking information about the Xbox One. The damn thing is almost out and we still don't have the full details on what features it has and doesn't have.

Honestly I don't think anyone at Microsoft has any idea what this damn thing is anymore, and if they do they certainly didn't tell their spokespeople.

 

[BernardoOne]

Also if I remember correctly wasn't the Xbone and it's DRM an opt-out system instead of an opt-in?

Well according to Microsoft, it was "in" by default. And I would presume Microsoft is an authority on Microsoft

The original Xbox One didn't restrict used games by default, but rather allowed developers the right to restrict it [http://www.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/1g8t5e/lets_clear_up_the_issues_used_games_kinect/ ]. You know, kinda like Sony's discreetly announced software policy quoted in the article.

I'm getting mixed signals here. Besides Sony didn't say it had default DRM, but it has the possibility of DRM. That's why I compared it to their region locking, because the system is able to region lock games but the majority don't. The reverse is true with the Xbox. There were a handful of region free games, but the default was region locked.

To the best of my knowledge, both systems would default to "no restrictions", unless the publisher or Sony specifically defined the game otherwise.

Having a online check every 24 hours is in no way "no restrictions"

 

[WeepingAngels]

Even then, that stipulation is most certainly part of the "boilerplate" on pretty much every piece of software since Sir Bill of Gates managed to use them to carve his Empire out of everyone's pocket.

Oh damn, you mean I don't own my NES, SNES, N64, PS1, PS2, GBA, DS, etc.... games? Those most certainly did come out after Bill Gates started licensing software.

 

[Saltyk]

They could potentially kill a used game, but there is one thing stopping them:

There is no online requirement for the PS4. There is a big day 1 patch, but it isn't needed to play games.

But anyway, yeah: No online, no way of them telling which game is used and which isn't. Unless it's a multiplayer game or something.

Yea, it sounds a lot more like they can reserve the right to ban a player from online only games and remove their ability to play those games. As I don't have to be online, I don't see this being an issue.

Yeah, this sounds like they are reserving the right to ban players. Specifically those who make the gaming environment negative to toxic. Sure, it could be used to restrict used sales. But it could also be used to restrict day one purchases. I'm sure I could come up with other theories of what it could do.

Is the OP looking for a reason to dislike Sony or something? Or merely confused as to what this means?

 

[DarkSpartan]

Even then, that stipulation is most certainly part of the "boilerplate" on pretty much every piece of software since Sir Bill of Gates managed to use them to carve his Empire out of everyone's pocket.

Oh damn, you mean I don't own my NES, SNES, N64, PS1, PS2, GBA, DS, etc.... games? Those most certainly did come out after Bill Gates started licensing software.

More or less? There's similar language in nearly everything PC, and the same in a lot of the disc-based consoles. I haven't done a detailed read of the license terms for the consoles in a few years, but rest assured, that you are in fact licensing the software. You bought the rights to one only copy of the software for your personal enjoyment, not an indefinite right to copy/sell/etc the software.

The level of enforcement can and will vary, but if you sell back t3h g4m3 of |_|lt1m4t3 s|_|c|<4g3, then the chances of Sony approaching you over it is zero. The store can then do as they will. If you give your buddy your disc, and you can still somehow play the game, then that's something they can (and should) object to. PSN Downloads say two consoles and two handhelds-- this is a hard limit that they can (and do) enforce.

I seem to recall that Sony reiterated their E3 stance in response to these articles.

EA, ActiBlizz, Ubisoft and their ilk notwithstanding. They can do what they please beyond Sony's network, and you can say and do nothing about it.

 

[Eve Charm]

Even then, that stipulation is most certainly part of the "boilerplate" on pretty much every piece of software since Sir Bill of Gates managed to use them to carve his Empire out of everyone's pocket.

Oh damn, you mean I don't own my NES, SNES, N64, PS1, PS2, GBA, DS, etc.... games? Those most certainly did come out after Bill Gates started licensing software.

You own it but can you do anything with it, no. You can't make copies and sell copies to people. You don't get free reign to do whatever you want with something just because you own it, thats why their are tons of these EULA's and fine print in those instruction booklets for the games you own, and newer updates to things with the inventions of emulation.

These ELUA's about used games and stuff have already been in the ps3 and the xbox 360 but of course they never used them, so they have it in these to. The thing is EULA's don't always hold up in court so even if they try to flip a switch to turn off used games, enough people would take them to court over it in usually settle.

When PS3 took away linux, people that actually went through the trouble of taking sony to court, some won it despite EULA.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Even then, that stipulation is most certainly part of the "boilerplate" on pretty much every piece of software since Sir Bill of Gates managed to use them to carve his Empire out of everyone's pocket.

Oh damn, you mean I don't own my NES, SNES, N64, PS1, PS2, GBA, DS, etc.... games? Those most certainly did come out after Bill Gates started licensing software.

More or less? There's similar language in nearly everything PC, and the same in a lot of the disc-based consoles. I haven't done a detailed read of the license terms for the consoles in a few years, but rest assured, that you are in fact licensing the software. You bought the rights to one only copy of the software for your personal enjoyment, not an indefinite right to copy/sell/etc the software.

Yes, I own my copy of the games. I do not own the copyright. Not owning the copyright doesn't mean I licensed my copy, I own my copy unless you can tell me what legal right Nintendo would have to take it back from me.

 

[Reed Spacer]

The whole 'used game' affair is fueled by greed.

Flat-out greed.

The companies have realised they're only getting one slice of the pie and are throwing a hissy-fit for the rest.

Setting such a precedent would be the equivalent of buying a used car and then the company sending someone along to take the tires away.

 

[DarkSpartan]

Even then, that stipulation is most certainly part of the "boilerplate" on pretty much every piece of software since Sir Bill of Gates managed to use them to carve his Empire out of everyone's pocket.

Oh damn, you mean I don't own my NES, SNES, N64, PS1, PS2, GBA, DS, etc.... games? Those most certainly did come out after Bill Gates started licensing software.

More or less? There's similar language in nearly everything PC, and the same in a lot of the disc-based consoles. I haven't done a detailed read of the license terms for the consoles in a few years, but rest assured, that you are in fact licensing the software. You bought the rights to one only copy of the software for your personal enjoyment, not an indefinite right to copy/sell/etc the software.

Yes, I own my copy of the games. I do not own the copyright. Not owning the copyright doesn't mean I licensed my copy, I own my copy unless you can tell me what legal right Nintendo would have to take it back from me.

You agree to give them that right by not returning it promptly, in new condition. It's in the language of the EULA in question, which you agree to explicitly when you use the software the first time. Is it enforceable? Maybe.

Did you give them that right? According to the contract you "signed" by using the product, yes you did.

 

[Something Amyss]

And by restrict, we mean that Sony and publishers can restrict your ability to trade in your disc-based games. Totally fair right?

No, but I'm assuming you were being facetious.

If the anonymous comment section is to be believed, it's a fairly standard juridical condition that even the PS3's terms had. But then, what was the deal with the whole Xbox One used games controversy? The original Xbox One didn't restrict used games by default, but rather allowed developers the right to restrict it [http://www.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/1g8t5e/lets_clear_up_the_issues_used_games_kinect/ ]. You know, kinda like Sony's discreetly announced software policy quoted in the article.

Well, I mean....

You mention other elements being an issue. One of them was communication. We had a bunch of news coming out and very little information. The Xbone would charge for used games. It would block them. It wouldn't charge you. It wouldn't block them, but would require X Y and Z. It wasn't really a console, but a cookbook. It was people! People!

People didn't know what to believe and probably overreacted some. But the fact that Microsoft was being both tight-lipped and contradictory in what little it did say meant problems and suspicion.

However, Microsoft confirmed it was a thing.

I would also point out there was rage against the PS3 when it was supposedly going to do this. The fact that it hasn't come to fruition has dulled such rage.