Rumor: (PS3+entitlements management) might it start out like this ?

Panajev2001a · (09-11-2006, 08:12 AM)

This is just a rumor that has got to my ears after the article was published thanks to an individual who contacted me and asked not to be named.

As that person said as well: this is only a rumor, but that person did tell me that this rumor got to this person's ears some months ago.

I asked this person permission to post this also because even while it might not be true, it might be a nice idea of the FIRST STEP to put the mechanism outlined here ( http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=118192 ) into place.

Quote:

Sony will release free online play
but thats just for the person who bought the game new.

you first register yourself on Sony network

-you buy the game and play it online

-you get bored of the game and you try to sell it away
your friend buys it from you, puts it in his console and want to play it online

-Message arrives on screen:
dear customer this game is already registered on GAMERX profile. IF you want to play this game online plays pay X euro thank you

Could they finance free online play like this ?

Could the X euro fee mentioned in this rumor be what the patent mentioned as transfer fee ?

Could we easily think about Reward points be given in the case the new customer buys the game from you and registers it ?

Andy787 · (09-11-2006, 08:14 AM)

Yeah, doubt it.

I'll believe it when Sony announces it.

Bebpo · (09-11-2006, 08:15 AM)

If that's the ONLY time it is used, I support the idea. Then it basically just becomes like a cd-key for online gaming and maybe some of the profits will be cycled back to the publishers/developers.

Plus free online play is always cool.

mckmas8808 · (09-11-2006, 08:22 AM)

Nope still hate the idea.

MrNibbles · (09-11-2006, 08:25 AM)

I don't believe it!
</StarFox>

IceIpor · (09-11-2006, 08:36 AM)

It sounds a little better, and it seems to make some sense.

If this is what the system is for, what is it suppose to mean?

It's obviously not for piracy, as it lets you re-register.

Hmm... I guess I should speculate.

So if the original owner ever wants to play the game again he is either going to have to buy a new copy, or he is going to have to get his old copy back and re-register?

...Unless he doesn't have to, and this is just to allow multiple people to play online with a single game disk if they don't want to share accounts?

That sounds better... but why wouldn't they just share accounts unless you can't change accounts on PS3s? Especially since only one account should be able to play online with a single game disk anyway...

Plot thickens, and it becomes clear that it's almost futile to continue speculating. Maybe we should just wait until Sony clarifies their online plans.

Panajev2001a · (09-11-2006, 08:38 AM)

As I said, if this were to happen I do believe it would be the first/testing step, not the fullest extent they would ever go. IMHO they would see how it goes, how people react and if and when to move a step further.

BorkBork · (09-11-2006, 08:42 AM)

So what if you resell a game to a used game store? They would have to sell crippled versions of games because the purchaser of said used game would have to pay Sony to get full access to the game, correct? I could totally see EB and Gamestop not liking this.

Midas · (09-11-2006, 08:43 AM)

I don't like it. But it actually makes some sense. I don't buy used games so it wouldn't affect me.

omg rite · (09-11-2006, 08:43 AM)

Originally Posted by BorkBork:

So what if you resell a game to a used game store? They would have to sell crippled versions of games because the purchaser of said used game would have to pay Sony to get full access to the game, correct? I could totally see EB and Gamestop not liking this.

forget EB and GameStop

try the 80% of people that shop there specifically for used PS2 games

Pope Benedict XVI · (09-11-2006, 08:44 AM)

I won't be surprised at all if Sony announces some kind of "entitlement" system for PS3 games. The fact that Sony gets no income directly from used-game sales is probably a much bigger grievance for them than piracy. Imagine all those used-games you see in eb/gamestop being pirated games, and sony doing nothing about it. The only difference is that some people take the resale value of a game into account when buying it new, and so sony does get some indirect benefit from used-game sales in that sense. But overall they lose out big time.

BorkBork · (09-11-2006, 08:46 AM)

Originally Posted by omg rite:

forget EB and GameStop

try the 80% of people that shop there specifically for used PS2 games

Obviously the consumer going to be the ones that get screwed if used game prices stay the same. And if they cut their used game prices to accomodate the expense that people have to pay to access full content, then Sony gets that chunk of their revenue, and they would be pretty pissed off. That's all I was saying.

gofreak · (09-11-2006, 08:50 AM)

Originally Posted by BorkBork:

So what if you resell a game to a used game store? They would have to sell crippled versions of games because the purchaser of said used game would have to pay Sony to get full access to the game, correct? I could totally see EB and Gamestop not liking this.

Their margins are ludicrous as is. If they were nice, maybe they'd give the regular amount of credit and discount the game for the cost to go online with it. But they wouldn't, they'd just lower the amount of credit given, and hopefully lower the price of the game for a buyer to compensate for the online cost. Maybe. If they did do that, at least you'd get used games cheaper, if you'd no intention of going online.

Or maybe Sony would simply phrase it as "free online for people who buy games new, otherwise we apply our standard once-off, per-game fee". In that sense, Gamestop et al could trade them as normal, with no discount to cover the extra cost of going online with the game.

FredFish · (09-11-2006, 08:50 AM)

I suspect that if you subscribe to their "premium" service you wouldn't be confronted with that screen.
Blizzard generates $1 billion annually from their 7 million WoW subscriptions. If PS3 is only half as successful as PS2 that means around 52 million units. If only one third of that number pay for premium service at $15 a month that generates around $2.5 billion annually. Publishers get a cut based on the prevalence of their titles being played. That's a decent revenue stream without even counting movie, music and game extras adding to the sum.

I'll wait for specifics on implementation though. Much like you admitted Panajev I was somewhat angered when I first read your article and it's potential implications. I'll reserve judgement until final details are revealed.

RuGalz · (09-11-2006, 08:53 AM)

If this is true basically you gain the right for free online access for the title if it's a brand new/unregistered game. You pay for online portion if it's an used game. Consider the percentage of people go online with their console, this would only affect a portion of the total market.

To me that's better than having to pay online subscription fee and only use it once every blue moon.

Not a bad first step, until people adopt the concept of DRM before they push out other ideas anyway.

Orobi · (09-11-2006, 08:55 AM)

Not bad idea and still good to maintain free online gaming.
Well, time of "all free" is finished :(

Zaptruder · (09-11-2006, 08:57 AM)

For publishers... second hand sales are a bigger screwjob than piracy.

With piracy; it's not inherent that the person would be willing to pay for it anyways otherwise...

but with second hand sales; the middle man is completely short circuiting any payment to the publisher; there's a customer willing to pay good money for it; and while they'll be purchasing the game legally, and handing money over for it, none of it will find its way to the publisher... for the publisher, that pretty much means that a paying customer isn't paying them!

This CD Key method isn't too bad; the question then becomes, can you register a single copy to multiple handles, or is it only one at a time thing?

Whatever the case is, it can be a very effective method of getting people that want to play your games to buy them; as long as the multiplayer is stellar.

And with all buyers of new copies recieving free online play, the online community will definetly be there

Seiken · (09-11-2006, 08:59 AM)

That's great news. But what if you buy it used?

Ash Sparrow · (09-11-2006, 09:01 AM)

I bet you'll have to pay for registering online when you first buy the game, thus rendering the free online service a lie.

Bodom78 · (09-11-2006, 09:03 AM)

As a gamer, I would rather pay for the online service and be able to buy second hand games.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was true since Sony are the masters at pulling off terrible ideas.

gofreak · (09-11-2006, 09:20 AM)

Originally Posted by Bodom78:

I would rather pay for the online service and be able to buy second hand games.

That's exactly what this system enforces/allows.

Faizal · (09-11-2006, 09:21 AM)

This will be terrible for those of us who rely on Gamefly and used games a lot. :(

Faizal · (09-11-2006, 09:24 AM)

So how would this work with game rentals? So you can no longer expect to get the "full" experience from games you rent unless you pay extra?

Panajev2001a · (09-11-2006, 09:25 AM)

Originally Posted by RuGalz:

If this is true basically you gain the right for free online access for the title if it's a brand new/unregistered game. You pay for online portion if it's an used game. Consider the percentage of people go online with their console, this would only affect a portion of the total market.

To me that's better than having to pay online subscription fee and only use it once every blue moon.

Not a bad first step, until people adopt the concept of DRM before they push out other ideas anyway.

It would not be, for them, a bad step at all: get people into the system, make it seem like it is all full of positive things for people (maybe even add Reward Points for the owner of the game who let a friend buy or borrow the game) and no real negative effect.

Wollan · 09:29 AM

I never buy used games so I personally won't get affected but I think it sounds like a better idea then what we discussed. And it makes more sense as it deals with the online component alone(and therefore Sony won't have issues with offline customers, and you can still access the games offline mode without paying that fee). I guess this also prevents everyone that has the console wired up online from using pirated software.

Panajev2001a · (09-11-2006, 09:27 AM)

Originally Posted by Faizal:

So how would this work with game rentals? So you can no longer expect to get the "full" experience from games you rent unless you pay extra?

I'd think so, rentals is something companies would love to get a piece of.

Panajev2001a · (09-11-2006, 09:28 AM)

Originally Posted by Ash Sparrow:

I bet you'll have to pay for registering online when you first buy the game, thus rendering the free online service a lie.

I do not think it would be like that if the game was brand-new.

The Faceless Master · (09-11-2006, 09:30 AM)

Originally Posted by Zaptruder:

For publishers... second hand sales are a bigger screwjob than piracy.

With piracy; it's not inherent that the person would be willing to pay for it anyways otherwise...

but with second hand sales; the middle man is completely short circuiting any payment to the publisher; there's a customer willing to pay good money for it; and while they'll be purchasing the game legally, and handing money over for it, none of it will find its way to the publisher... for the publisher, that pretty much means that a paying customer isn't paying them!

This CD Key method isn't too bad; the question then becomes, can you register a single copy to multiple handles, or is it only one at a time thing?

Whatever the case is, it can be a very effective method of getting people that want to play your games to buy them; as long as the multiplayer is stellar.

And with all buyers of new copies recieving free online play, the online community will definetly be there

they were already paid for the game when it was sold the first time, so it's not a screwjob...

Bodom78 · (09-11-2006, 09:32 AM)

Originally Posted by gofreak:

That's exactly what this system enforces/allows.

Oh, I didn't see the possibility of a transfer fee. Well I guess that is better for developers and Sony's hip pocket.

I guess the bargin hunter gamers will need to shop around even more to justify the cost of the second hand game and then the transfer fee. Most of the gamers I know buy second hand if would never think of paying RRP for a game, they are way too expensive as is.

Hardcore games of course would sell their mothers for the next big hit.

FredFish · (09-11-2006, 09:35 AM)

Originally Posted by Faizal:

This will be terrible for those of us who rely on Gamefly and used games a lot. :(

I'm willing to bet you wouldn't see anything pop up trying to play used games or rentals if you subscribe to the "premium" service. If you buy a new game at retail you can play online for free to your heart's content with that title. If you want to go "budget" on game purchases and don't want to pay for PNP subscription they'll nickel and dime you to death though.

element · (09-11-2006, 09:36 AM)

Quote:

Then it basically just becomes like a cd-key for online gaming and maybe some of the profits will be cycled back to the publishers/developers.

You assume that developers and publishers will see a dime of that money. Sony could whore it all.

Wollan · (09-11-2006, 09:37 AM)

The transfer fee is most likely very small I would think. More like 0.5-2$ instead of 10$ I bet.

gofreak · (09-11-2006, 09:38 AM)

Originally Posted by Bodom78:

Oh, I didn't see the possibility of a transfer fee. Well I guess that is better for developers and Sony's hip pocket.

Unless I'm totally misunderstanding what Pana is saying, it's not a transfer fee. It's a fee to play online if the game is used. So you can buy your used games, but you pay to play them online.

Panajev2001a · (09-11-2006, 09:42 AM)

Originally Posted by element:

You assume that developers and publishers will see a dime of that money. Sony could whore it all.

Look at him, I trust in Ken, he would not do that:

Of course, there is evil impersonated too:

Panajev2001a · (09-11-2006, 09:44 AM)

Originally Posted by gofreak:

Unless I'm totally misunderstanding what Pana is saying, it's not a transfer fee. It's a fee to play online if the game is used. So you can buy your used games, but you pay to play them online.

Call it however you like... always a fee it is :P.

WhiteAce · (09-11-2006, 09:47 AM)

Quote:

The transfer fee is most likely very small I would think. More like 0.5-2$ instead of 10$ I bet.

Sony have some very weird ideas on pricing - we just need to see what the deal is, as mentioned - both sides are guessing at the moment.

gofreak · (09-11-2006, 09:48 AM)

Originally Posted by Panajev2001a:

Call it however you like... always a fee it is :P.

Well yeah, it's a fee, but not in the same sense as we were talking about 'transfer fees' before. There's no payment if you don't play online, and by the sounds of it, you're not transferring the right to play online as such - if the original owner took the disc back, the game is already registered under his profile also, and he'll play online for free again..?

Wollan · (09-11-2006, 09:50 AM)

Originally Posted by gofreak:

if the original owner took the disc back, the game is already registered under his profile also, and he'll play online for free again..?

mrklaw · (09-11-2006, 09:58 AM)

edit : nm

D3VI0US · (09-11-2006, 10:09 AM)

First they have to lure you in to adopt their bullshit system until they gradually tighten the noose. Not to say that all content isn't going this way but whoever makes the first move catches the brunt of the shit until we all cave. Still it's bullshit that they've been pushing "free" online and are gonna charge secondhand users. It's bullshit that I gotta jump through hoops to either play games at a friends or he does or both of us. It's all tied to the games being registered and being online so I wouldn't be surprised if we got microtransactions or points as incentives. Picture packs, themes, or in game trinkets would be our first buyer entitlements probably but who knows what they're really doing or if we'll ever see it this gen even. I don't think they're gonna try to pull any shit yet but they're certainly getting ready for it, I don't see why they'd want to give us even more bad news though.

elostyle · (09-11-2006, 10:16 AM)

This sucks for people with friends in any way imaginable.

ACE · (09-11-2006, 10:17 AM)

sounds stupid .. you wouldn't even be able to borrow a game to a friend and be able to play online

Panajev2001a · (09-11-2006, 10:37 AM)

Originally Posted by ACE:

sounds stupid .. you wouldn't even be able to borrow a game to a friend and be able to play online

You would.

Bebpo · (09-11-2006, 10:38 AM)

Originally Posted by element:

You assume that developers and publishers will see a dime of that money. Sony could whore it all.

I'm not assuming anything. Did you miss the word "maybe" in the sentence? I noticed you didn't highlight it :P

I've been getting mis-quoted a lot lately where people think words like "could, possibly, maybe" indicate that somehow I think 100% X will happen, when of course I'm just saying there might be a 5% chance something will happen. Do people just not read anymore? (this isn't aimed at you element, but rather just letting off some steam because this keeps happening to me) :(

CajoleJuice · (09-11-2006, 10:39 AM)

Sounds like Steam...I could see this happening. Not that I like it, but I can imagine it.

Kabouter · (09-11-2006, 10:41 AM)

Wouldn't care if they did do this, I never buy second hand games.

quest · (09-11-2006, 10:42 AM)

I assume pay MS 60 bucks a year and be able to rent and buy used games and play them online. With next gen prices 59.99 I buy as many games as I can used these days or rent it first.

Ghost · (09-11-2006, 10:51 AM)

Surely this is wont happen, I mean the companies that run the rental and second hand game business are the ones selling all the first hand titles, you'd think a move like this would piss them off a lot.

TTP · (09-11-2006, 10:54 AM)

Ok. Here is another hypotheis:

-Message arrives on screen:
dear customer this game is already registered on GAMERX profile. IF you want to play this game online please pay X euro or ask for authorization to GAMERX (Friends problem solved). Thank you.

Also, maybe you can also pay with Entitlements rather than real money. Like you got those 1000 Entitlement points from previous games sales and now you are given the possibility to either pay to go online or use, say, 100 Entitlement Points.

gofreak · (09-11-2006, 10:55 AM)

Originally Posted by Ghost:

Surely this is wont happen, I mean the companies that run the rental and second hand game business are the ones selling all the first hand titles, you'd think a move like this would piss them off a lot.

With renting companies, arrangements could be made as discussed in the other thread. For the likes of Gamestop or GAME et al, I'm not sure if it would really piss them off. They may come under pressure to discount second hand PS3 games versus other platforms, but they may take the opinion that you have to pay to play online on other systems anyway, and that this isn't their problem. Even if they did discount the games, they could protect their margin by simply offering proportionally less credit/cash for PS3 games when buying them off people.