How is Sony handling the sharing/second hand games thing?

So how is Sony handling the whole sharing game discs/installing games to the hard drive/second hand games business?

I'm assuming their games will be also installing to the Hard Drive just like the Xbox. But the whole having to be online and paying a fee/signing in with someone else's account seems to be a disaster for Microsoft.

Maybe the disc itself will act as the game ownership license? Like, you still install the game, but you can't play it without simply having the disc in the machine, as opposed to an online pass or key code thing. That would certainly solve the problem and make it act basically the same as physical disc games do now.

They haven't specified yet.

All new games install to the hard drive and then the console writes data to a small, unused portion of the disc to signify that it has been installed. If that disc is installed to any other Playstation 4, the console with lock the disc in the tray and the dedicated anti-piracy chip hardware will explode the whole fucking thing. Sony engineers are still working on getting the explosion to come out in the shape of a hand giving the middle finger.

I hope they do that, install but disk needs to be in the system. Rather that ' inconvenience' than crazy DRM.

We still don't know yet, and if it proves to be similar to what the Xbox is doing I won't buy it either.

Similar to Microsoft, Sony has confirmed that they will allow used games in some capacity; they simply haven't specified what that exactly means. Their official position is currently "we'll announce our position in more detail as and when we can."

For the moment, they may just enjoy allowing Microsoft to receive most of the hate and then reveal that they are doing something similar but slightly less restrictive.

Right now, it's simply too early to tell definitively on either platform, as it still seems in the air until E3.

I hope they announce it soon because I've already written out an angry rant about how I'm not buying it and am itching to post it.

@humanity: Is less than three weeks soon enough? Only 18 days until E3.

@truthtellah: Thats a bit long I want to post my "Angry Joe-esque" rant right now so everyone can know how angry I am about the new design decisions behind the PS4/Xbox One (also how I'm not buying either since they're breaking the constitution of the United States with their views on game sales and some other shit)

If they're smart, they'll jump on this opportunity to establish an anti-fee used/borrowing game stance.

@humanity: Ah, are you parodying the other dozen threads like that today? heh.

I say wait until you can say for sure. ;)

Pretty sure they were in wait and see on this. Now that MS has confirmed they're doing it, they may just jump on the bandwagon.

That said, they better be giving us something extra for all this locking nonsense. If I wanted all my games to lock on me, I'd only buy Steam games.

No mention yet, but i would assume after the disaster that was the Xbox one reveal, if they do have something in place that is similar, they will definitely be rethinking their options.

I think a lot of people are forgetting this DRM stuff wasn't Sony or Microsofts' idea. Game developers have been pushing for this for years, the only reason EA dropped Online Pass recently is because it is being done on a hardware level now. I wonder how many of you who say they won't buy a console that has DRM or always online have ever played a game on Steam or an MMO. Games are expensive to make, look how many developers merge and layoff employees because their games don't sell in the billions because the millions aren't good enough to make the kind of profits it takes to pay artist, programmers, ect. for all their work. Microsoft hasn't sold me an Xbox One with what they have shown so far, but I bet Sony has similar used game fees/ online pass purchases for their games they just haven't made official statements on it yet. Maybe that means fewer gamers, or fewer games being bought, but it won't stop me from playing next gen stuff. I respect the work that's being put into the games I play, and i'm willing to jump through a few hoops if it means feeding a family to play a game. I think that is a fair trade. The market is changing, that may not be for everyone, that may not be what you want to hear but this kind of stuff isn't going anywhere. I'd rather pay a little more to have a full game experience than see everything in a game locked behind microtransactions, maybe thats just me. : /

I can fully understand that nobody wants that a single game is played simultaniously on multiple consoles. So you are basically left with two options: Require disc in the tray at all time or require an "online activation" of some sort. The online acitvation is a quite convinient option because you can switch between games without switiching discs. Also it streamlines the process when you add downloadable games to the mix, that simply don't have any cd.

That leaves the problem that someone installs to harddrive, activates online and never reconnects to the net again. Then he sells or lends the blueray disc to someone. Do you want to allow him to play the game? What if the new buyer does not have internet at all? etc.

My solution would be to allow 1 single install at any given time. So you would have to invalidate your current installation (and go online for that purpose) before you can install it on another machine. But I would also allow the game to be played withou installation as long as the blueray disc is in the tray. This way I could borrow the game to a friend and he can play as long as he has access to the physical disc.

This solution has two problems from the non-consumer view: It basically open the possibility to team up and buy a single game for two people. One keeps the disc the other installs locally. And what happens if I buy a used game and the seller did not deactivate it. How is this handeled legally? Am I able to track him down, when I buy the game from a reseller?

If you want to prevent that you have to either require the console to be online so you can detect if two instances of the same game are played at the same time or you do require the disc to be in the tray. However things will turn out I would be very surprised if either sony or microsoft would allow "discless" play without online activation.

I have no problem with DRM, locking games to accounts or online checks. I want maximum convenience and I am willing to pay for it. I think the problem is not the DRM, but the prices. Were are the crazy -75% steam like sales, where you can get last years hits for a few bucks?

Best Answer

This is why EA dropped online pass and are cuddling up to Microsoft. I wonder if that's indicative of Sony not blocking used games in any way.

Sony will let you play used games but only if you agree to having Jack Tretton come to your house and punching you in the stomach.

@sooty said:

Actually it points towards Sony probably matching what MS is doing, or at least letting the publisher decide if to enable that kind of DRM.

haha hadn't thought about that yet, knew those bastards had a plan

I think its still up in the air. What I hope they do is something similar to Resistance 3. You buy the game and redeem a code for some cosmetic perks and an online pass. If you buy the game used and want to play online you need to pass $10 for another code, but you can access the single player portion fine. Sony is more conscious of the global market, I don't imagine they will take as firm a stance as MS since they need to market Europe and Japan happy.

They are probably going to do the same thing. This is a huge push from the dev. and publishers I doubt one platform will do it without the other doing it.

My guess is that they are doing the same thing, and I'm getting ready to build a PC.

Sony does not have to follow suit. There are two outcomes here. First, they do, and piss even more people off and hardware sales decline for both systems, this starts accelerated end of console gaming with more people moving to PC. Overall game sales will decline even further than the hardware sales. At least in the first few years. Which make all parties involve rethink the situation.

Or they do not. Yeah publishers are more than likely wanting it. But they can not just put their games on one console. Sales wont support it. Especially if more units of the other hardware are selling because of it. They will lose sales, giving their games a harder time to break even or turn a profit. This is really a give and take situation. You have to publish your games to the large install base, plain and simple. So if Sony says we wont do it, you can either put your games on our system, or have a huge sales hit. What do you think most publishers will eventually end up doing? You got it, both systems. Yes some consumers will still buy the xbone, but sales wont be what they used to be, and any publisher that tries to hold back on ps4 will eventually have to switch back.

I think Sony coming out at E3 and boldly saying we are not doing what they are doing will be a huge step forward in them taking back the market they gained with the PS1/2.

However, as others have said, the thing that has me concerned about them not doing that, is the EA online pass thing.

I don't think either console maker knows exactly what they're going to do yet, but they are both going to do the same thing. No way one limits used games while the other allows them fully.

As much as i hate to say it, if Microsoft is doing this DRM the publishers are most likley gonna push Sony in to doing it as well. I dont see EA (and Ubisoft, Activision) allowing used games on one while not on the other. If Sony doesn't want to jeopardize those publishers releasing games on the ps4 then they might have to fall in line. I hope at least i can install the game directly on the hardrive like the xBone (cause that idea is great for all the people who don't want to walk 10 feet like me), while best case scenario Sony will somehow get away with not hindering used games (bar online passes).

I have a feeling that both systems will have the same policies. I don't see how Sony could, in the publishers' eyes, get away without enforcing the same kinds of rules that Microsoft would be enforcing. It would be too easy for them to completely outperform Microsoft this generation if they treat always online and used games the same way it was treated this generation.

It sounds like you're saying that it was Microsoft's idea to enforce this DRM. To me, it sounds like the console manufacturers were pressured by the big publishers to make these decisions. I don't see how Microsoft could make this huge of a decision alone.

They have not said, only stated that they will not block used games. which if you take the shady PR wording from Microsoft that may not mean they will not have a similar plan as X1. I would hope Sony backs away completely from doing anything like this which would really stick it to Microsoft. But if we are being realistic Sony may very well have something in place also to keep used games trading in check.

Now if Sony has to do this i would think the smart plan would be to have games be linked to your account just the same as X1 but each game would have say like 10 to 20 keys that will allow it to be used on that many systems or accounts. When those keys are up the 11th or 21st person/account would have to pay the current market price to use it. That way people would still be able to trade with friends or family members. The would also slow down game stop from making unlimited returns on games.

It would also be a nice touch to leave it up to devs and publishers if they want to take part in it or have unlimited keys.

Online DRM authentication before a store bought physical copy is playable on the console in my living room is a make or break issue for me. If I cannot bring a physical disc home from the store, put it in the console, and play immediately, I will not buy the system. I will upgrade my PC and join the master race. The whole point of console gaming for me is convenience and simple accessibility. Make me jump through online hoops on console and you have just removed my only incentive to have a console present in my home.

Now, you may point out, here, that Steam also has its own DRM and hoops. That is true of course. The difference between a console and a PC, in so far as this issue goes, is intended use. The only reason I would buy a console is to play games only, and to do so in as simplified a way as possible. That's it. Everything else I already do on my PC and am not in the market for replacement. Steam is a passive commercial entity as far as I'm concerned. I am not paying hundreds of dollars for a system that allows access to Steam. Nor am I paying a monthly fee for that access. Devoting that money to a console implies an investment in the platform and a commitment to the games produced for it for potentially several years, not to mention monthly fees as well.

@hmacyfan4eva: Here is my best guess: Sony will expose an API to publishers that allows the publisher to decide if games have to register to the console and or require a persistent connection in order to play. That is the "easiest" way for Sony to say "We do not require online DRM for the PS4 nor constant connectivity to play games." It could be decided on a publisher by publisher basis and Sony's hands are clean.

MSFT is making this a global requirement across all the games coming to the xbox one, and that has [as we have seen] blown up in their face.

Sony will follow suit. This is a mandate from the publishers and if PS4 wants strong 3rd party titles from EA, Activision, ect then they are going to follow through on the wishes of the publishers.

this sounds like the most likely outcome to me.