• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Sony PS4 does not require an internet connection. Ever. Seriously. Listen. Read.

~Kinggi~

Banned
Kotaku update should be in OP

UPDATE: More relief... At a roundtable this morning, Sony's game studios chief, Shuhei Yoshida, told reporters that any requirement for users to register a game online in order to play it would be left to game publishers. Sony won't require that.

90% of publishers to require online activation!


oh i hope not :(
 

Kolgar

Member
If Sony plays this right, I'll come back to the fold.

Hell, I have two PS3s now, but 360 is my go-to game console and I buy almost everything on Xbox.

Given what I've heard from Microsoft, I'm feeling pretty sour on Xbox One (what a dumb name)--especially since Sony's making some moves I like with PS4.

WiiU, PS4, and Steam for me, potentially. Sony, I'm rooting for you.
 
Thank god. I hate the internet and everyone that uses it. The internet is the worst invention of all time, which is why I am proud to say that no device I use will ever be connected to that hellish invention.
 
I'm telling you guys... this online sign up system that yoshida is talking about has absolutely nothing to do with their used game DRM. Their used game DRM is offline and is based off of RFID tech. All he is talking about is the ability of online only games, like say... Destiny, to have you create a login.

I'm not guessing this. I knew the day I made the posts in the keighly thread and then started the the campaign against this shit that it was an offline tech. Nowhere in my OP do I mention online only. It was never going to be that.

Then why the outrage?

The biggest issue IMHO is online activation, because a lot of folks don't have reliable internet access at all times.

But the offline DRM for used games? I don't see the problem with that. Used games are a blight on the industry.
 
Wow I've gone from an o.g Xbox Fanboy to multi-console owner this gen to only owning a PS4 (perhaps) and PC. How can you eff up this much MS?

If multiplayer online is free on PS4 again I'm all in.
 

baphomet

Member
Then why the outrage?

The biggest issue IMHO is online activation, because a lot of folks don't have reliable internet access at all times.

But the offline DRM for used games? I don't see the problem with that. Used games is a blight on the industry.

Yea, because used games have caused so many problems as long as video games have been around...

What's it like to be so anti consumer? Hope you told those giant faceless corporations where to send your money to.
 
Was up gaffers and GOD BLESS, check it out.

Sony has a interesting approach this gen and 2 key factors will be Price, and Exploiting.

Sony actually have a plan working with the developers closely to make sure they utilize the PS4 in full.

From a multi-plat stand point mainly as a selling point when it comes to comparisons on performance.

This generation you may see up to 80 percent of multi-platform games running at 60fps on PS4 as a standard where as Xbox may not get that same achievement because of what's dedicated to the OS and slow bandwith.

The cloud technology could help fix this issue but not out the gate.

Sony and Microsoft have some interesting angles in the war but Sony has the edge.

VIDEO COMING SOON on the last of us demo impressions and more.
 

Windforce

Member
I think each gamer has to stick to his/her own principles when purchasing a new console.

How far will you go/pay to get your gaming fix?

My Xbox 360 for example never goes online because I refuse to pay for Xbox Live Gold. I am certainly not paying to play online when every other platform allows me to play for free. Would I like to play some games online on it? I certainly would, but I refuse to support such ridiculous policy by M$ and I am deeply saddened that they get away with it.

Now if it offered some kind of worth to me, I would subscribe, such as with PlayStation Plus: not only my main account pays for PS Plus, I also pay a second subscription in a different region to get more games and discounts.

As for the new consoles, I'll have to see which sacrifices I'll need to make to play the games I love.
 
Just because you are not affected doesn't mean the practice will be acceptable. Publishers and developers do get paid for their games. They get paid when someone buys their products. What the person does after they buy said product shouldn't be influenced or dictated by a publisher or developer. If I buy a game for $50-60, beat it, and then choose to give my game to my friend, sell it on Craigslist, or trade it back in to Gamestop, that should be MY business and my RIGHT.

Movie studios haven't behaved as draconian as publishers and many developers are attempting to behave. First sale doctrine shouldn't be treated differently just for games.
I can buy a book, read it, and sell it.
I can buy a CD, listen to it, and sell it.
I can buy a car, use it, and sell it.
I can buy a TV, watch it, sell it.
I can buy a refrigerator, use it and sell it.
I can buy an oven, cook on it, and sell it.

GAMES ARE NO DIFFERENT NOR SHOULD THEY BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY.

If publishers want to make more money then stop spending $50-100 million on games that don't have a chance in hell to make the money back.
If publishers want to make more money then be more creative, take more chances with lower budget games.
If publishers want to make more money than sell games at $40-50 with 1/4th the budget and they'll have a great chance of making their money back.

Publishers need to stop blaming other forces for their misfortune. THQ deserved 100% of the blame for their bankruptcy. Mismanagement, trying to release games that never had a chance of success.

Shame on you for supporting something as draconian as this just because you are not affected by it. Shame on you.

Shame on you for suggesting that games, which can cost upwards of a hundred million to produce, are equivalent to used cars, where dealerships get tons of business through routine service and financing. Videogames do not have such luxury. The other industries (CD, Books) cost nowhere near as much to produce.

And I'm not suggesting that used games be BLOCKED....just that publishers get a kickback on every used-game transaction.

What's so unreasonable about that?

Yea, because used games have caused so many problems as long as video games have been around...

What's it like to be so anti consumer? Hope you told those giant faceless corporations where to send your money to.

Videogames never used to cost hundreds of millions to produce and market.

I'm not anti-consumer, I'm pro-developer.
 

Iacobellis

Junior Member
Was up gaffers and GOD BLESS, check it out.

Sony has a interesting approach this gen and 2 key factors will be Price, and Exploiting.

Sony actually have a plan working with the developers closely to make sure they utilize the PS4 in full.

From a multi-plat stand point mainly as a selling point when it comes to comparisons on performance.

This generation you may see up to 80 percent of multi-platform games running at 60fps on PS4 as a standard where as Xbox may not get that same achievement because of what's dedicated to the OS and slow bandwith.

The cloud technology could help fix this issue but not out the gate.

Sony and Microsoft have some interesting angles in the war but Sony has the edge.

VIDEO COMING SOON on the last of us demo impressions and more.

There you have it, folks. Sony wins.
 

Orca

Member
Just because you are not affected doesn't mean the practice will be acceptable. Publishers and developers do get paid for their games. They get paid when someone buys their products. What the person does after they buy said product shouldn't be influenced or dictated by a publisher or developer. If I buy a game for $50-60, beat it, and then choose to give my game to my friend, sell it on Craigslist, or trade it back in to Gamestop, that should be MY business and my RIGHT.

Movie studios haven't behaved as draconian as publishers and many developers are attempting to behave. First sale doctrine shouldn't be treated differently just for games.
I can buy a book, read it, and sell it.
I can buy a CD, listen to it, and sell it.
I can buy a car, use it, and sell it.
I can buy a TV, watch it, sell it.
I can buy a refrigerator, use it and sell it.
I can buy an oven, cook on it, and sell it.

GAMES ARE NO DIFFERENT NOR SHOULD THEY BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY.

If publishers want to make more money then stop spending $50-100 million on games that don't have a chance in hell to make the money back.
If publishers want to make more money then be more creative, take more chances with lower budget games.
If publishers want to make more money than sell games at $40-50 with 1/4th the budget and they'll have a great chance of making their money back.

Publishers need to stop blaming other forces for their misfortune. THQ deserved 100% of the blame for their bankruptcy. Mismanagement, trying to release games that never had a chance of success.

Shame on you for supporting something as draconian as this just because you are not affected by it. Shame on you.

Yet another 'GAMES AREN'T DIFFERENT' supporter that strangely excludes PC games in their list of examples.

Games just aren't comparable to cars, fridges, TV sets, etc... Those are material goods that decline with use where secondary users get a lessened product, and there's the potential it fails entirely at any time. Plus there's just no comparing the churn of those markets. A game can be resold dozens of times in a year. That doesn't happen with cars. If it did, you'd be sure they'd be crying bloody murder - even though most dealerships also have a used business on the side...and a mandatory order slate for new cars.

Edit - by the way, to be considered a 'bestseller' a book needs to sell a ridiculously low number of copies. I think it's 35,000 in the US. In Canada, it's only 5,000...and that's lifetime. The majority of books released in a year sell less than 500 copies. Is that what games should aim for?
 

baphomet

Member
Shame on you for suggesting that games, which can cost upwards of a hundred million to produce, are equivalent to used cars, where dealerships get tons of business through routine service and financing. Videogames do not have such luxury. The other industries (CD, Books) cost nowhere near as much to produce.

And I'm not suggesting that used games be BLOCKED....just that publishers get a kickback on every used-game transaction.

What's so unreasonable about that?



Videogames never used to cost hundreds of millions to produce and market.

I'm not anti-consumer, I'm pro-developer.

So yes, you're anti-consumer.
 
Movie studios haven't behaved as draconian as publishers and many developers are attempting to behave. First sale doctrine shouldn't be treated differently just for games.
I can buy a book, read it, and sell it.
I can buy a CD, listen to it, and sell it.
I can buy a car, use it, and sell it.
I can buy a TV, watch it, sell it.
I can buy a refrigerator, use it and sell it.
I can buy an oven, cook on it, and sell it.

GAMES ARE NO DIFFERENT NOR SHOULD THEY BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY.

I can buy a copy of Photoshop, use it, and sell it. But first I have to unregister the software with Adobe and transfer the the license to the person I'm selling it to. Which, if they set it up correctly, is what Microsoft is trying to do, just with the addition of a fee for the license transfer to be paid by the buyer (in the case of a private sale or in the case of a company like Gamestop).

If you look at games as software instead of media, it makes a difference.

And even outside of all that, they aren't actually preventing you from selling the physical disc (which is what you actually own, the disc, not the software on it). They're just making the disc worth less after the initial sale.
 
Was up gaffers and GOD BLESS, check it out.

Sony has a interesting approach this gen and 2 key factors will be Price, and Exploiting.

Sony actually have a plan working with the developers closely to make sure they utilize the PS4 in full.

From a multi-plat stand point mainly as a selling point when it comes to comparisons on performance.

This generation you may see up to 80 percent of multi-platform games running at 60fps on PS4 as a standard where as Xbox may not get that same achievement because of what's dedicated to the OS and slow bandwith.

The cloud technology could help fix this issue but not out the gate.

Sony and Microsoft have some interesting angles in the war but Sony has the edge.

VIDEO COMING SOON on the last of us demo impressions and more.

Where do you hear all of that from?
 
nice response, so you're anti-developer then

Nobody asked video games to cost that much. It's not a requirement. It's a business model choice. Did Minecraft cost hundreds of millions of dollars? No. Most games don't and most games don't need to. It's not our responsibility that they bloat their budgets.
 

Barakov

Gold Member
Seems like Sony finally cleared up the issue once and for all. Good to hear. If any 3rd party does the online authentication thing, it'll be pretty easy to avoid their stuff. Now all we need now is for Microsoft to do the same.
 
Nobody asked video games to cost that much. It's not a requirement. It's a business model choice. Did Minecraft cost hundreds of millions of dollars? No. Most games don't and most games don't need to. It's not our responsibility that they bloat their budgets.

OK, so let's not have developers spend hundreds of millions of dollars on games, only to have them make one $50 sale originally that is then sold ad nauseum to mulitple users over the course of years that they never get a cut of.

Yes, really all we need are cheap mobile flash games and stuff like minecraft.

Certainly we have no need for games that require actual production values and large budgets.
 

baphomet

Member
nice response, so you're anti-developer then

If the 50 or so games I buy day 1 at full retail per year isn't enough for developers and they think they have some sort of right to my property after that they can fuck right off.

Anyone thinking otherwise is the worst form of corporate shill.
 

Man

Member
So basically Sony is leaving it up to every publisher in how they want to do this. No mandatory used-games DRM on PS4.

applause.jpg
 

Truespeed

Member
Okay PR bullshit tell me your secrets.

[random shit redacted]

Hey, let's all quote words and then place random nonsensical shit underneath it. I can't tell if this is a joke post or not. It has all the hallmarks of a joke post, but my booty sense is telling me it's not.
 

Brashnir

Member
Seems like Sony finally cleared up the issue once and for all. Good to hear. If any 3rd party does the online authentication thing, it'll be pretty easy to avoid their stuff. Now all we need now is for Microsoft to do the same.

There's still the potential bugger of the RFID chip on the disc. If they can use RFID to tie a disc to a specific console, we're right back at the same problem.
 
Then why the outrage?

The biggest issue IMHO is online activation, because a lot of folks don't have reliable internet access at all times.

But the offline DRM for used games? I don't see the problem with that. Used games are a blight on the industry.

Because we bought the games and then we own the games. Just because publishers and gamestop have shitty policies doesn't mean my rights should be taken away. Every other physical product I buy I can resell. Why should videogames be different?
 
Because we bought the games and then we own the games. Just because publishers and gamestop have shitty policies doesn't mean my rights should be taken away. Every other physical product I buy I can resell. Why should videogames be different?

You own the physical discs, there's no law that I'm aware of that say you own the content contained on the disc.

As someone else mentioned, there's already systems in place for resale of software licenses.
 

Barakov

Gold Member
There's still the potential bugger of the RFID chip on the disc. If they can use RFID to tie a disc to a specific console, we're right back at the same problem.

Well, that definitely put a damper on things. Guess we'll have to watch how this develops.
 
I can buy a copy of Photoshop, use it, and sell it. But first I have to unregister the software with Adobe and transfer the the license to the person I'm selling it to. Which, if they set it up correctly, is what Microsoft is trying to do, just with the addition of a fee for the license transfer to be paid by either the seller (in the case of a private sale) or the buyer (in the case of a company like Gamestop).

Even that comparison is not very good. Photoshop is productivity software. People buy it because they need it perpetually. You don't use Photoshop for 8 hours, get all the achievements and decide you're done.

The closest analog for games is a movie ticket. It's only value is the experience it allows you to have. Once you've had the experience that value has been consumed. Sure, you can still sell the stub, it just isn't worth anything anymore. It's physical nature is an artifact of utility. The paper never had value to begin with. It doesn't make economic sense for anyone to open a chain of theaters that accept used ticket stubs, and yet that's exactly the kind of business Gamestop runs.

And people need to let go of their paranoid fantasies about being price gouged. There will still be price competition exactly the same way there is now for Steam games. 9 out of the last 10 Steam games I bought were from places other than Steam. You can get boxed copies, codes from Amazon, GMG, GamersGate and any number of other places. If consoles migrated to one use codes you'd see exactly the same thing, since we're talking about exactly the same publishers in most cases.
 

Cmerrill

You don't need to be empathetic towards me.
Online passes

I don't mind paying 10$ to play a used game online. It makes sense and I'm not so entitled to believe that running servers and keeping them running for years(other than EA) doesn't cost $$$$ and that I should have access to it for free. That's as much as I am willing to do for used games and I believe it's fair.
 

Rich!

Member
Used games are a blight on the industry? What a load of absolute fucking bollocks.

I buy a new retail game. I finish it. I sell it via Ebay or trade it in at GAME for store credit so I'm able to afford another new retail release.

sure, publishers can block used games - but it means I will buy far less sealed new copies as a result, and the same can be said for thousands and thousands of other consumers who do exactly the same.

I cannot afford paying £40-50 every single time I buy a game. And either way, when I buy a game any resale from it is my gain. Anyone who puts the wants of a multimillion dollar publisher above the rights of the consumer can fuck off.
 
I'm completely at a loss at how people are reading this quote and thinking the DRM thing is over.


They said in february the system wouldn't require online. Yoshida confirmed it again.


This changes nothing about their used game DRM. It was never, ever, ever, ever tied to being online. Every single rumor about since last year was about it being offline. Every single report from people who have seen it now are about it being offline. It's an offline based DRM. Online registration of games is a completely different issue.


I sincerely hope there is no DRM, honestly. And I wish they would announce it right now. But they didn't duck the DRM questions to give a half assed answer about online registrations. They are different subjects.
 

Brashnir

Member
Well, that definitely put a damper on things. Guess we'll have to watch how this develops.

yeah. I have my fingers crossed that it's just unfounded paranoia, but I had the same thoughts about Microsoft when their stuff was still in the rumor phase.
 
You own the physical discs, there's no law that I'm aware of that say you own the content contained on the disc.

As someone else mentioned, there's already systems in place for resale of software licenses.

Actually it would need to be the other way around. There would have to be a law saying we didn't own whats on the disc... which there isn't. There are EULAs which have absolutely no weight legally.
 

baphomet

Member
I'm completely at a loss at how people are reading this quote and thinking the DRM thing is over.


They said in february the system wouldn't require online. Yoshida confirmed it again.


This changes nothing about their used game DRM. It was never, ever, ever, ever tied to being online. Every single rumor about since last year was about it being offline. Every single report from people who have seen it now are about it being offline. It's an offline based DRM. Online registration of games is a completely different issue.


I sincerely hope there is no DRM, honestly. And I wish they would announce it right now. But they didn't duck the DRM questions to give a half assed answer about online registrations. They are different subjects.

They would never do anything like that. You realize how easy it would be to actually block the RFID or rewrite an RFID on a disc that says its brand new? If they're not using an online based system than they're not using one at all. Whomever is telling you that is just going off the previously reported patent.
 
Actually it would need to be the other way around. There would have to be a law saying we didn't own whats on the disc... which there isn't. There are EULAs which have absolutely no weight legally.

You don't own what's on the disc. What's on the disc is content. Content created by a developer and then distributed by a publisher. You have no rights whatsoever when it comes to the distribution of that content.

Platforms can enable that content to be restricted.

There's nothing in the law that says it's somehow illegal to block second-hand sales if the technology or platform exists for such measures.
 
OK, so let's not have developers spend hundreds of millions of dollars on games, only to have them make one $50 sale originally that is then sold ad nauseum to mulitple users over the course of years that they never get a cut of.

Yes, really all we need are cheap mobile flash games and stuff like minecraft.

Certainly we have no need for games that require actual production values and large budgets.

If they can't make money on $100,000,000 games then they shouldn't spend $100,000,000 on games.
 

Big-E

Member
Even that comparison is not very good. Photoshop is productivity software. People buy it because they need it perpetually. You don't use Photoshop for 8 hours, get all the achievements and decide you're done.

The closest analog for games is a movie ticket. It's only value is the experience it allows you to have. Once you've had the experience that value has been consumed. Sure, you can still sell the stub, it just isn't worth anything anymore. It's physical nature is an artifact of utility. The paper never had value to begin with. It doesn't make economic sense for anyone to open a chain of theaters that accept used ticket stubs, and yet that's exactly the kind of business Gamestop runs.

And people need to let go of their paranoid fantasies about being price gouged. There will still be price competition exactly the same way there is now for Steam games. 9 out of the last 10 Steam games I bought were from places other than Steam. You can get boxed copies, codes from Amazon, GMG, GamersGate and any number of other places. If consoles migrated to one use codes you'd see exactly the same thing, since we're talking about exactly the same publishers in most cases.

Comparing games to a movie ticket is ludicrous. Pretending the disc is like a used ticket is hilrarious. The game still works, the ticket doesn't. The game can still be played after the credits role. Buying a game doesn't entitle you to a single play through. You play it for as short or as long as you want to. And if someone wanted to use your "ticket" to play the game they can. Game companies have to make complicated and intrusive systems to tell if your "ticket" has been used before, movie theatres just look to see if it is ripped. The two couldn't be further than the truth.
 
You don't own what's on the disc. What's on the disc is content. Content created by a developer and then distributed by a publisher. You have no rights whatsoever when it comes to the distribution of that content.

Platforms can enable that content to be restricted.

There's nothing in the law that says it's somehow illegal to block second-hand sales if the technology or platform exists for such measures.

This thread isn't an argument of laws. It's an argument of what consumers should put up with.
 

Sean

Banned
Activision and EA will not forfeit 50% of their profit for what is expected to be a very marginal game through used game recoupment. The losses would be catastrophic.

It's a brand new generation, both systems are starting from zero marketshare. There's no way in hell that PS4 would ever capture 50% of the market in the first place if the biggest third party publishers like Activision and EA snubbed the console.

Publishers hold all the power here, if they really wanted to play hardball Sony would have pretty much no choice but to cave in to their demands. Sony has always relied on third parties, they can't support an entire platform by themselves.
 
This thread isn't an argument of laws. It's an argument of what consumers should put up with.

I hope both Microsoft and Sony get a cut from used game sales. The industry would be a LOT healthier.

You're telling me that people would give up on gaming just because they have to pay an extra fee on top of their used game purchase??
 

Rich!

Member
These are the blights on the videogame industry:

- Dev costs spiralling out of control due to publisher mismanagement.

- A complete lack of innovation in most genres, as every publisher tries to get their own Call of Duty. Too much risk to innovate, due to previously mentioned mismanagement.

- Aiming for short term profit to appease shareholders rather than any meaningful effort to make long term plans

- Ripping off consumers with overpriced DLC, online passes and used game limitations

- A stranglehold on the gaming media, rendering the majority of them as meaningless shills with no balls.


all in all, the industry is a blight on itself. Consumers shouldn't have to suffer and give up their rights because gaming publishers are a bunch of greedy, mismanaged, short term profit seeking, controlling cunts.
 
They would never do anything like that. You realize how easy it would be to actually block the RFID or rewrite an RFID on a disc that says its brand new? If they're not using an online based system than they're not using one at all. Whomever is telling you that is just going off the previously reported patent.



Look, i'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass. I've been saying it for a while now. If I was pulling it out of my ass I would have been banned so, so, so long ago. I have friends at Sony working on the system. They don't know each other... yet they both described the same system to me. Is this some sort of crazy elaborate prank? Candid internet camera?


Seriously. This isn't me speculating. And you aren't allowed to post here if you give out bullshit leaks... and i've leaked my fair amount of shit and i'm still here.
 

lostones

Banned
Online verification vs RFID

Idk what's worse both are Pretty bad. With RFID sharing games will basically be eliminated though.
 
I hope both Microsoft and Sony get a cut from used game sales. The industry would be a LOT healthier.

You're telling me that people would give up on gaming just because they have to pay an extra fee on top of their used game purchase??

I'm telling you they don't deserve a cut of my game when I sell it or if somebody else or some other company sells a game they own.
 
I hope both Microsoft and Sony get a cut from used game sales. The industry would be a LOT healthier.

You're telling me that people would give up on gaming just because they have to pay an extra fee on top of their used game purchase??

If you actually think developers will be making MORE money from these restrictions you're in for a very rude awakening.
 
Top Bottom