davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
DopeyFish said:
i didn't say it was good in practice, just the idea and business strategy.
but i'd have to see how it panned out if they even implemented it.
-
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.
NeoGAF FrontPage Discussion: It's all about the Entitlements
- Thread starter Panajev2001a
- Start date
i didn't say it was good in practice, just the idea and business strategy.
but i'd have to see how it panned out if they even implemented it.
Adam Blade
WWKC
Sticky?
CajoleJuice
Member
Adam Blade said:
Smiles and Cries
Member
should Wii be worried?
well yeah, ideally that should be the case.Hitokage said:Scrow: Three words...
First Sale Doctrine.
That is not a problem that they should have the liberty of "fixing", thank you.
but as the wiki page for first sale doctrine outlines, companies manage to find loop holes specifically in regards to computer software i.e. "licensed and not sold"
sometimes when things put in place to protect their freedoms fail people have to do things they shouldn't need to do in the first place.
Scrow said:
No it doesn't suck.
I've got other choices. And while I continue to enjoy Sony's consoles and products, I am not under their spell like a scientologist on bark-at-the-moon night.
I have no problems at all giving my money to Microsoft, Nintendo, or with PC gaming. But for those of you that have pledged your undying loyalty and faithfullness to Sony and only Sony... well then yeah, it sucks for you.
Seeing things like this makes me glad I'm a gamer first, and not some corporate shill.
duk said:
Well yeah, this makes that moreso, it's yours and yours only. Even stealing won't work(for the criminal).
I don't really see the negative points for this unless friends have to pay when they want to borrow your game? (I guess you can just give a 'rent time')
I don't understand how it's going to work offline though.
Howard Alan Treesong
Member
I've known about this for a few days, and it basically solidified my decision not to buy a PS3 until Sony clarifies how restrictive this is. It could range from "a cool alternative way to sell off games" to "restrictive DRM the likes of which haven't been seen since DiVX destroyed Circuit City's share price."
I'm cautiously unoptimistic.
By the way, while I appreciate the in-depth nature of the article, I think an "official" short summary would be appreciated by everyone just wrapping their head around entitlements for the first time.
I'm cautiously unoptimistic.
By the way, while I appreciate the in-depth nature of the article, I think an "official" short summary would be appreciated by everyone just wrapping their head around entitlements for the first time.
Dragona Akehi
Retired
Wollan said:
Sorry mate. If something is mine then me MYSELF gets to decide what to do with it. Myself ALONE. Sony can eat shit and die.
meltpotato
Member
Wollan said:
OH. MY. GOD.
i do not understand. please draw me a picture.
Adam Blade
WWKC
meltpotato said:
Agent X
Member
Wollan said:
You don't. That's where the problem is. It requires you and your friend to have the system connected to the Internet. That's one reason why some people here don't believe this will happen anytime in the near future, because even though the Internet is very popular, it's not at a point where every owner has the ability to connect his game console to the Internet.
That, and some people are fearing some form of DRM and/or "invasion of privacy" claims.
Here's another idea, taking it one step further. This might not make a great deal of sense for current disc or cartridge formats, but what if instead this applied to digital downloads?
That's right...you buy a small downloadable game for $5, play it for a month, and get sick of it. You call your friend who likes the game, he agrees to pay $4 over the network for it. $1.50 goes to you, $1.50 goes to the developer, and $1 goes to Sony. End result, your friend pays a buck less, you get a buck and a half back (in online credit points) for a game you'd otherwise never play again (and free up hard drive space as well), and the developer still makes some money on it.
The same could be extended to online music downloads or online movie downloads, too.
Wollan said:
so you're telling me you can't just give an old game to your friend/cousin/etc for the heck of it? give me a break, if it's mine then i can GIVE it to anyone i want. they already made money the first time, do they need to make money again and again? what if your disk gets scratched and you have to buy a new one? what if your console breaks? no more rentals?
imagine buying a used car, not only do you have to pay the owner, you have to pay the maker a small fee to use it?
this is clearly wonderful greedy corporations wanting to nickel and dime you to death
Dragona Akehi said:
Okay so the problem is about privacy. Gotcha.
I'm not saying I support this system but if you're a user of Windows/Live you're already sharing a lot of information.
But I guess this is more personal as they keep track of every game you own. I guess that info may even be used to determine a character(this customer only buys violent games...etc).
edit: Holy batman. Stop quoting me folks. I was asking what the problem was and Dragona answered.
Look, there is alot of things coming down the pipe that the consumer is getting screwed on. Microtransactions, half ass games and hardware being rushed to market, overpriced peripherials, sequels with incremental changes ... the list goes on and on.
Just throw another one on the pile. Complain now, but when the time comes and that killer app that YOU HAVE TO HAVE comes out, you are going to jump on. You're an addict and can't resist.
Just throw another one on the pile. Complain now, but when the time comes and that killer app that YOU HAVE TO HAVE comes out, you are going to jump on. You're an addict and can't resist.
ManaByte
Gold Member
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
duk said:
probably not.
i agree with your sentiments, but we'd need more info on how they implement it i think.
same could be said of gamestop, imo. someone sells it back to the same gamestop they bought the game at -- gamestop already made the money off it, why do they need to make more money off it?
i think this is a non-issue, especially since you're buying a new one, and the old one is going to be junked because you can't play it, since you're buying a new one.
gamertags are probably going to be the main thing to worry about.
not necessarily. i think that people will want to have people borrow games from each other rather than having their friends go through blockbuster or something so they can get the benefit of the extra Sony Points.
well, maybe not the maker, but you sure do have to pay for gas to keep using it. not to mention the government for registration fees, etc.
welcome to corporate culture.
Dragona Akehi
Retired
Wollan said:
I don't use Windows or Live. When I DID use Windows I took my goddamned right to block all outgoing information. To keep my system adware free.
This isn't just about privacy. It's about right of ownership. If something is mine it's mine. I can take a shit on it, give it to someone or sink it underwater. Doesn't matter. It's mine.
This just tramples over consumer rights yet again and I can't believe you're ****ing defending the idea. Christ we may as well return to a feudal system!
ManaByte said:
Hmm let me correct myself, no way this is going to be used for discs as of right now. There is no way for Sony to be sure every person in every country has an internet connection... but they will be sure that anyone who downloads games DOES have an internet connection.
Sounds like a pipe dream to me...
Such a system would fail for 2 reasons; makes it difficult for the original owner to get money back when he sells his copy, and not all users have access to the net; so would that mean users without the 'net would only be able to play the game in demo mode?
Instead, a better system would be to give incentive to the original buyer; you buy the game, first registry, will give you entitlement points (maybe $5-$10 worth; afterall, for Sony, these virtual points are as good as printing money; there is no concept of inflation in such an environment). Server identifies your user id with the game id. Also, the game might include downloadable extras, such as wallpapers or a few downloadable songs, only available to the first registered user. Generally anything that fits in the theme of nice to have but are not game essential items. Even stuff like the pets from WoW CE is feasible.
You still hold the physical copy; when you sell it, the next user no longer gets the benefits of the extras, or the entitlement points. If they want to though; they can buy the extras with entitlement points, so it's not like they have no way to regain those extras.
Instead, a better system would be to give incentive to the original buyer; you buy the game, first registry, will give you entitlement points (maybe $5-$10 worth; afterall, for Sony, these virtual points are as good as printing money; there is no concept of inflation in such an environment). Server identifies your user id with the game id. Also, the game might include downloadable extras, such as wallpapers or a few downloadable songs, only available to the first registered user. Generally anything that fits in the theme of nice to have but are not game essential items. Even stuff like the pets from WoW CE is feasible.
You still hold the physical copy; when you sell it, the next user no longer gets the benefits of the extras, or the entitlement points. If they want to though; they can buy the extras with entitlement points, so it's not like they have no way to regain those extras.
Razoric said:
Although probably improbable, it is quite possible for Sony to implement some sort of wierd requirement like internet access to register and play your games.
They can just use a system similar in fashion like MMORPGs or online games in general.
Heck, maybe they'll just slap a label that the PS3 is a system that requires an internet connection on the box and call it a day.
But of course, this is a highly improbable route...
I hope MS/Nintendo/Sony/future consoles never reach that point.
artful_dodger
Member
Dragona Akehi said:
Depends on what side of the fence you're on. More money to the developers and publishers means more new IP's and less rehashes of "sure bets" and sports games. And its not like you're out anything on the deal.
If you ask anyone who's in this industry what the biggest problem is right now its that games are costing tens of millions of dollars to make, and yet the retail price of games have stayed the same.
Would you rather have this or $100.00 games?
The long and the short of this appears to be Sony chiseling their way into every private transaction involving used games... and having the ability to completely disable access to any game, should they so desire.
I'm siding with Dragona on this one, with the added note that my collector side hates "server unlocking" systems, as there is no guarantee any company will survive the next ten years. I'm not paying money to play a game which only works if the company's server is live and allows me to play the game.
I'm siding with Dragona on this one, with the added note that my collector side hates "server unlocking" systems, as there is no guarantee any company will survive the next ten years. I'm not paying money to play a game which only works if the company's server is live and allows me to play the game.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
artful_dodger said:
somehow, i'd doubt that.
but keep hope alive!
meltpotato
Member
artful_dodger said:
you seriously think that would happen, dont you?
Dragona Akehi
Retired
artful_dodger said:
Solution: make better games.
PS: companies making money is their OWN concern. Not mine. Individual rights should always be greater than any company/government/organization.
This means nothing as far as new IP's being developed. Companies will still make games that they think will generate the most revenue. This is just another way to make money. And I'm pretty sure games may one day turn out to be $100, no matter how a system like this is implemented.artful_dodger said:
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
The fee details would be interesting but the patent specifically talks about lost revenue from second hand sales, so you'd have to think that a copy that is sold on by you to a friend or whatever is going to cost you roughly the cost of second hand game - and that cost will always be dictated by the publishers/sony.
What this system does screw up is lending games out - or taking over that hot new game to show a friend. Unless you are going to take your PS3 along with you, you are pretty much hosed!
The other thing that is annoying about this is that in a house with multiple machines (like ours will undoubtably be) my wife can't use my games, and i can't use hers. She could use my PS3 to play the game of course, but that's a massive inconvenience.
The harddisk/memory unit is used - whenever you do go online , it'll dump all the details then. Of course, you could NEVER go online and that would solve the problem to a small extent, but it means that your friends have to never go online too. :/
Anyways, we've known about this for a while - we thought Entitlements was them being stupid with their usage of the word, but it doesn't look that way at all. If this is coming to the PS3 then this will be another bullet into Sonys already badly bleeding foot.
Dragona Akehi
Retired
Bebpo said:
No, because this is just raping the consumer yet again.
I believe that there was a discussion on a similar issue concerning Sony and the Japanes second hand games market over there a few month ago. I vaguely remember it being dismissed as being false, but could this system potentially be revealed with Sony's online plan at TGS?
The developer/publishers/Sony is the only ones truly benefiting from this idea(no more pirated games, small fees).
The only positive thing for the consumer I guess is that they can 'rest assured' that if it's stolen, the thief can't play it(but you've still lost your disc so doesn't really help does it), and also that whatever store doesn't sell you used copies.
While I personally don't have a big issue regarding database tracking(I use Windows, Live and all kind of services atm so yeah) but the whole user system, locks and such is ass.
edit: Does this tie in with Sony's remark about not needing to have the biggest market slice to gain good profits?
The only positive thing for the consumer I guess is that they can 'rest assured' that if it's stolen, the thief can't play it(but you've still lost your disc so doesn't really help does it), and also that whatever store doesn't sell you used copies.
While I personally don't have a big issue regarding database tracking(I use Windows, Live and all kind of services atm so yeah) but the whole user system, locks and such is ass.
edit: Does this tie in with Sony's remark about not needing to have the biggest market slice to gain good profits?
I'm sure they will make the "activation" transparent as long as you and the recipient are subscribers in good standing to the new Sony Station All Access pass...
I refused to "buy" HL2 because of the Steam restrictions and if Sony does implement this I will refuse to purchase a PS3
P.S. I used quotes around buy not because I pirated the game but because Valve explicitly forced you to acknowledge that your retail purchase wasn't a purchase in the traditional sense
meltpotato
Member
White Man said:
a more realistic example of what he is saying is a three level 30$ game with 5$ three level packs that come out every 2 weeks for 3 months.
datruth29 said:
But in your game, EVERY consumer gets screwed out of $50 for the full game. In the event that a game cost $29.99 but the owner of the game can't sell it...they lose <$30. So the total is still <$60 assuming that EVERY consumer sells EVERY game they own...which is not very likely. Those who don't sell games would just be able to buy twice as many games as they normally would with their budgets.
I'm not suggesting this is realistic. But the idea in a perfect world is RE: used games/rental markets dying and developers/publishers selling 3-5x as many copies as they do now...is that games could be sold for less while publishers/developers still make more.