At least that gives you the option to not support those publishers should you choose. Best thing that can happen is they expect more sales and get nothing of the sort. Then they have the option of releasing their next game(s) without DRM.
Geoff Keighley: PS4 Used Game DRM (EDIT: but now apparently on hold)
- Thread starter PopcornMegaphone
- Start date
At least that gives you the option to not support those publishers should you choose. Best thing that can happen is they expect more sales and get nothing of the sort. Then they have the option of releasing their next game(s) without DRM.
GoofsterStud
Member
There's a difference between a Monopoly where you only have one option and Steam.
:-/ Stop comparing apples to oranges.
NekoFever
Member
I'm not defending it, but used games sales are far more widespread than, say, movies and music. There are second hand record stores, of course, but here all the biggest high street sellers of games offer used ones. HMV sells movies, music and games new but only sells used games.
Of course, it's down to pricing, but I don't think the industry is mature enough to look at whether £40 for games while cracking down on people trading them in for new ones is sustainable. They only see the dollar signs.
metalslimer
Member
Well this industry is crashing this gen. Of course with the way things are headed watching the console industry crash and burn will be pleasurable to watch. They don't have a damn clue why they are struggling, continue to fail miserably at attracting new gamers/keep them, and have no real sustainable business plan.
Because EA, Activision Blizzard, SE, Ubisoft, Konami, Sega, etc. can't wait to invest $50 million in that next AAA surefire iPad hit!
Magic Mushroom
Member
EDIT: wrong thread, damn it.
GoofsterStud
Member
If Sony sells way more games because of a bigger install base. The same developers will drop Xbox Ones support.
Oh dear...what a conundrum.
The market is going to be split again just like this gen, the only difference is the MS half will be more profitable to a 3rd party publisher then the Sony half. Sonys vagueness to me says they're going ahead with it.
The thing is big game publishers such as EA and Activision are monopolizing the game industry, as for third party big hitters. As for Football game as long as FIFA allows EA to be exclusive vendor and EA blatantly goes against used games, consumer have no alternative.
GoofsterStud
Member
*sigh*
You chose not to get it. If PS4 sells more games because of a bigger install base. In this situation the PS4 is more profitable.
It really is looking like those sports exclusive licenses are one of the most dangerous things to have in gaming as there's a large base that will always get those games without an alternative. If people were fine with license-less alternatives or would just not get those games it'd probably be different, but as is it's a shitty situation. Especially when one damn company has so many of those exclusive licenses.
What if the system fails and backfires resulting in less sales? Do publishers blame MS and flock to the PS4(if they don't have any DRM)?
If retailers have to pay MS and publishers a percentage of used game sales chances are they won't offer as much for used games. If retailers don't offer as much for used games, fewer consumers are likely to sell them their old games. If that happens there will be fewer used games on the market and consumers that relied on the money from selling used games to buy new games will buy fewer new games.
Basically, if all the above happens publisher will earn even less money.
Trye, but on the other hand, the yearly iterations of Fifa, Madden and CoD will mean that the majority of the userbase will be aware of the problems within the first 12 months. I don't think that's enough time to establish a firm enough foothold in this gen if there is going to be a massive backlash.
lastflowers
Banned
get what millions of people are doing already: buy games in a digital marketplace. Make that marketplace good, and enable them to sell their games within it. Developers get a cut, and games top dies a poor death.
From the rumors I've heard of a boy at so my, they're definitely working on this type of stuff--though itsaccount driven and apparently very cumbersome. Maybe they saw MS's plan and scrapped their own, but I doubt it. The vita is very telling about this. Day and date digital downloads, account tied purchases.
My thought for how ms gets around daily activation is having live create multi day tickets when you want to go offline for a while. After that point, live will not authenticate the sale of your cdkey with that game until the expiration of that ticket. Expiration is known at the live DB, users get to stay offline, live is assured that the game cannot be sold. Physical cd is worthless--only a download vector.
forcefullpower
Banned
@lastflowers
So basically under your way I would have to beg Microsoft to allow me to use MY game offline. FU I have never to had beg any company to play my games I bought in the last 30 years of gaming and I certainly will not be doing it now.
So basically under your way I would have to beg Microsoft to allow me to use MY game offline. FU I have never to had beg any company to play my games I bought in the last 30 years of gaming and I certainly will not be doing it now.
I still think Sony isn't going to have it mandatory across the board (and I hope they won't) it would make sense to have a system in place though to appease the likes of EA however.
Much like how I didn't grab the pitchforks when it was rumored Microsoft was doing it with their new console, I'll do the same here, but my stance on the actual practice being shitty remains the same.
Much like how I didn't grab the pitchforks when it was rumored Microsoft was doing it with their new console, I'll do the same here, but my stance on the actual practice being shitty remains the same.
I'd be interested to get an analysis of the economics on this one. If this reduces sales of new titles by x% and sales of dlc by y%, but increases revenue derived from used sales z dollars, how does the math work? I'd guess that provided there is a system that is convenient enough for selling used games through the service, it could be a great deal more money for them.
Weren't you around for the PS3 launch?
MS deserve what they are getting at the minute. They appear to have gotten too big for their boots, just like Sony had.
A large portion of people buy a lot of new games because they use the resale value of their old ones to ease the pain.
Take that away and you'll affect a large portion of the new market. I am struggling to see the logic behind what they are trying to do.
vpance
Gold Member
Trying to eventually become like Steam (or something like it) but without pissing off Gamestop before then.
They just need to get a cut of Gamestop used sales, that's the easiest solution.
JimiNutz
Banned
I just don't get why MS/Sony don't allow you to sell on a digital copy of your game on their market place. Just cut Gamestop etc. out.
Brick and mortar is dying anyway. Allow me to trade in my game digitally. I still have the option to sell, people can still buy second hand (but it will be a digital version only) and publishers get their cut of the pie.... Easy.
The only thing this doesn't really solve is the whole renting/lending issue.
Maybe they can sell special renting/lending trial codes that expire after 48 hours for a couple dollars a go?
Brick and mortar is dying anyway. Allow me to trade in my game digitally. I still have the option to sell, people can still buy second hand (but it will be a digital version only) and publishers get their cut of the pie.... Easy.
The only thing this doesn't really solve is the whole renting/lending issue.
Maybe they can sell special renting/lending trial codes that expire after 48 hours for a couple dollars a go?
The reason why digital second hand games aren't really a thing is because there's literally no difference between a new digital game and a used one. However, MS has indicated that they'll have a way to sell your games back to them for some amount of money.
That would hamper distribution I think. The retailers are important to getting the games out there.
Of course they wont do this...who would buy a digital title 'new'.
Majukun
Member
the only way a part can be profitable is by selling games.your reasoning is upside down...
So you would be okay with paying them money to be able to lend your game to a friend?
open_mouth_
insert_foot_
If one does it and the other doesn't, I hope the one that goes through with it flops out of the gates and then is forced to scratch the idea completely (which can be done technically rather easily).
If both do it, I hope both consoles have WiiU like starts and forces MS/Sony to scrap the drm together around the same time.
Our worst nightmare, as consumers, is if both have DRM and the adoption rate is brisk and game sales are acceptable to their financial guys.
These are interesting times... a real boycott of DRM consoles *can* work but it has to be really significant. Enough people have to care. So far, it seems like enough people do care but that could just be a vocal minority of the gaming community. We'll see...
If both do it, I hope both consoles have WiiU like starts and forces MS/Sony to scrap the drm together around the same time.
Our worst nightmare, as consumers, is if both have DRM and the adoption rate is brisk and game sales are acceptable to their financial guys.
These are interesting times... a real boycott of DRM consoles *can* work but it has to be really significant. Enough people have to care. So far, it seems like enough people do care but that could just be a vocal minority of the gaming community. We'll see...
That may not the be the case, and this is the real crux of the matter.
Say a game sells 5M on a Sony console, and 4M on an MS console. You'd think that the MS console is the worse one for publishers, right? But the publishers get a cut of all the used titles, bringing them up to 6M sales-equivalent with lower risk.
Hence MS would be a better choice for publishers to target in that instance.
Not saying that would necessarily happen, but the publishers and MS aren't really chasing after being the biggest console/games combo as the objective; their objective is to make money.
That's why the difference probably needs to be more extreme, AND DLC revenue favoring the more open platform.
Majukun
Member
that's why people should vote with their wallet and let the difference between the system be much greater
an industry goes where the money is..and the money can only came from our pockets
Ace Harding
Member
If they ever did something like that it would be the borrower that pays the fee, not the lender.
It would just be renting a game, just like you rent a movie on the iTunes Store. Except if your friend happens to have a disc you could use that for the install instead of a download.
travisbickle
Member
There won't be a secondhand market on the MS console. When you return your game MS will give you a refund of what it thinks is acceptable for the time you've held the product. Then that "secondhand" game will be cleaned up and sold at the current price of a new game.
Why would they do it any other way? They have total control of the supply line?
There are no 'better choices' in that instance; they both are crucial to make money. Hence why no publisher would just simply flock on to exclusively making X1 games out of 'principle'
It's a violation of first sale rights or something similar. Once a publisher earns their money, that's all they're entitled to it.
You're naive if you think that people are going to put up with it. Average consumers didn't put up with the $600 pricetag of the PS3; they voted with their wallets by not buying their console, which in turn, forced Sony to constantly cut prices of the PS3 while losing billions at the same time.
You think that they're going to put up with not being able to buy, trade, or sell used games (which is even worse than the $600 pricetag of a home gaming console)? Good luck with that.
I wonder if that matters if they enter an arrangement? But then the spirit of these laws would be prevent this kind of bullying, even if it'd the better alternative for many of us since it's mainly GameStop being a problem here.
But then they've tried this kind of crap with media all the time, and the only times it's REALLY worked out has been PC software (which would've probably been a nightmare to deal with properly otherwise anyway) and anything digitally downloaded, though I guess no one would succeed in court challenging this and I don't see the likes of Congress actually passing laws to block entertainment companies from doing this sort of thing if they wanted to.
If they get too greedy, I imagine there'd be a high risk of legal action.
That being said, if a used title is identical to a new one (ie digital 'used' games), then why should a future owner get a discount versus new?
For a used physical title, purchasers should absolutely get a discount (and probably will, marginally).
Still shit though. I agree with posters above; the difference in install bases and attach rates needs to be as high as possible. Buy a PS4 only, or if you buy both then buy all multiplatform games for the PS4. I'm assuming that the PS4 will also have some form of DRM though, possibly some kind of percentage cut amazon marketplace style that's split between them and the publishers. Any used game DRM requires an online connection though, wouldn't it?
RedRedSuit
Member
Again, above my paygrade, but I really don't see why it would be illegal to enter such a contract if desired.
Geoff did a great job, you have to give it to him
He turned an off comment into drama that got his name out and got him all kinds of hits and links, without having to give any facts or proof or links or evidence or really anything at all and people are so eager to deflect that they jumped all over it.
He turned an off comment into drama that got his name out and got him all kinds of hits and links, without having to give any facts or proof or links or evidence or really anything at all and people are so eager to deflect that they jumped all over it.
infiniteheteroskdasticity
Member
Posted this in the wrong thread but repeated here ....
One way or another no used games is going to happen. It is already a reality on tablets, smartphones and the PC. Given the hacker studied x86 architectures of both the PS4 and the X1, DRM of some sort is inevitable and even advisable. Microsoft got a lot of rage for a poorly messaged and clunky reveal of its DRM system but Sony will follow suite in a better managed reveal of its system for the same. One thing obvious to me for this new generation is that MS and Sony seem to be cooperating on a lot of things, at least implicitly via the publishers. The similar architectures of the systems was no coincidence and I imagine similar digital rights on both systems will be a given as well.
IMHO a more elegant bridge to a DD future would be to separate digital and physical game copies. Make physical copies of next generation games cost $70 but they would have the same resale rights and disc based DRM as the current generation. DD copies would cost $50 but they would be tied to a single account at all times. The platform holders would then message the heck out of it so everybody understands this. Over time MS and Sony could study the physical/dd split and when it reaches some sort of tipping point, discontinue the physical model in the most mature markets.
One way or another no used games is going to happen. It is already a reality on tablets, smartphones and the PC. Given the hacker studied x86 architectures of both the PS4 and the X1, DRM of some sort is inevitable and even advisable. Microsoft got a lot of rage for a poorly messaged and clunky reveal of its DRM system but Sony will follow suite in a better managed reveal of its system for the same. One thing obvious to me for this new generation is that MS and Sony seem to be cooperating on a lot of things, at least implicitly via the publishers. The similar architectures of the systems was no coincidence and I imagine similar digital rights on both systems will be a given as well.
IMHO a more elegant bridge to a DD future would be to separate digital and physical game copies. Make physical copies of next generation games cost $70 but they would have the same resale rights and disc based DRM as the current generation. DD copies would cost $50 but they would be tied to a single account at all times. The platform holders would then message the heck out of it so everybody understands this. Over time MS and Sony could study the physical/dd split and when it reaches some sort of tipping point, discontinue the physical model in the most mature markets.
H_Prestige
Banned
There is no packaged software on those.
This has nothing to do with hacking either. Suppose someone bypassed the Xbone's security, what's preventing him from running a pirated copy?
infiniteheteroskdasticity
Member
That's why I suggested a slow move away from the packaged software model. This is probably the last generation of consoles that come with a physical media drive.
Isn't preventing hacking the job of DRM? Microsoft's system seems to be (for now) that once a day ping home. If it can't authenticate a copy of a game I imagine it wont run (or even worse it screams bloody murder over the internet). If somebody hacked around all of this then yes, I suppose you could run a pirated game on a X1. Even then, I think deterrence might be a very good approach to dealing with piracy. For example, if the X1 detects an unauthenticated game you get a warning twice. The third time the console turns off its heatsink and unregulates its voltage to 'brick' itself. That would be scary enough for anybody to think twice about saving a few $s on a pirated copy of a game.
I honestly believe the HUGE lack of support for the Nintendo Wii U has a lot to do with it's lack of support for next-gen DRM. It was easy for publishers to blame it on the "weak" hardware, but I'm convinced they were salivating at the mouth when they heard of the huge DRM possibilities being offered by Sony & MS.
Glorified G
Member
There have been games announced for the ps360 and not the Wii U. It's more of the fact some publishers don't believe there games will sell on the Wii U.
They don't deserve a cut of those sales. They already made their money on the initial purchase.
Most Tablet/Phone apps do not cost 60 dollars. The various mobile appmarkets not only support indie developers, they embrace them. Finally, the mobile appmarket is a lot healthier than the console-industry is.
Similar threads
- Locked