Support NeoGAF

[Grayman]

::snickers::

That shovelware shit are "sure bets". Which is the problem he was talking about. It will only get worse without a major change to how publishers get money.

yeah when you make games that people smash you don't have to worry about second hand sales cutting into new sales.

So why should anyone care about the group of people who will never buy a full priced game and only buy used/rent? Companies don't make money on hardware (unless they are Nintendo), they make it on software. No one wants those people in the industry.

What if there was a time component? What if after 2 years a games price direct from the publisher/dev/licensee(sony) got cheap and you were gaurenteed to get one(not sold out). If I lost my copy of FFT and could buy one from square today for 15 dollars(cutting out retail even) I'd shell out gladly. Much more gladly than buying a used one for sure.

I think it's like a chicken and the egg thing....

The used games industry is huge because games cost too ****ing much but games cost too much partially because the used games industry is huge.

how to fix??? :O

kill used gaming and wait until sales boost enough to drop prices unfortunately. I doubt the companies would see the economics as a sure bet until greatest hits rolled around maybe. If something went greatest hits and sold like 8x what it did new maybe they would drop new game prices.

 

[KyanMehwulfe]

I'll have to re-read the entire thing. I scanned through it and the sense that I got was that it seemed like incentive to actually borrow games out to increase the penetration of games into the mass market. Eg; Lend a game to a friend, get 10 Entitlement points as a reward. Said lending would have restrictions on play-time though enforced over the internet; if no authentication is done, then they can play it all they want but you get no Entitlements.

 

[Pope Benedict XVI]

Why are some people dismissing this as something that won't happen?

The fact that the phrase "Entitlement Management" appeared on a slide at some public PS3 presentation (can't remember which) makes me think this isn't just some notion they're kicking about or merely looking to implement in the next next generation.

Also, reading through this thread, I get the impression that actually an awful lot of people don't really mind it, and some even like it. It seems like Sony probably could sell the idea.

One thing I still don't get is how this will work for offline users.


edit: I found a pic of the slide that mentions "Entitlement Management":

 

[artful_dodger]

One thing I still don't get is how this will work for offline users.

My guess is that it would not authenticate games until the first time you play them online. You would be forfeiting all network play, downloads, buddy systems etc. though.

Or, they would do it like any standard piece of PC software that requires activation (such as windows)...they give you a phone number to call.

 

[gofreak]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the patent does not refer to the word entitlement at all, just to bear that in mind. One might suppose that this is what 'Entitlements' are, but it would be merely a supposition at this stage, and maybe that should have been made clearer.

As for the system, I would not be particularly affected by this, as I never sell on games, and never buy them second hand. Lending out is rare, but that would be the limit to my exposure to it. I can see plusses and minuses to the whole thing - I can see why some people are warm on it, and some dead cold. Good point for debate.

 

[Attack You]

Things like this make me wonder if Sony is willingly trading away marketshare for profit -- as silly as it sounds. Produce a "scant" few PS3s to minimize losses per unit. Charge a nasty premium on a game a lot of people will not do without. Let Marketing push the "you're not a gamer unless you own this title" angle. I mean, you have a $600 console, in a $2,000+ entertainment center. People will look at you funny if you pussyfoot around buying one measily little game. So, you pay the premium, Mr(s). Moneybags. Again, and again, and again...

Is it lucrative to forgo the renters and used-gamers and focus on people with bushels of money to burn? That's kind of what I'm afraid of with the PS3 -- that it defaults to "the high-end market." I already feel as though I'm not allowed to even look at an X360 without an HD TV to appreciate it, and I think Sony wants to take that ball and run with it. I don't think it's a stretch to say that publishers are a lot more interested in one person that pays $80 for a new game they'll get a cut of than two people that pay $40 each to used game retailers and never see a cent of that.

What a jumbled mess of thoughts.

 

[Pope Benedict XVI]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the patent does not refer to the word entitlement at all, just to bear that in mind. One might suppose that this is what 'Entitlements' are, but it would be merely a supposition at this stage, and maybe that should have been made clearer.

Ah, I hadn't realised that.

I also hadn't noted before that "Entitlement Management" is under the heading, "Commerce". I think it's safe to say that Entitlements aren't Achievements.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Basically, if Sony implements this, it will murder the used games market, the rental market, and heck, even letting a friend borrow a game.

It all depends on what they do with the data they collect... there are MANY possibilities, ominous ones and less evil ones. Would they simply let you lend your game for free to a friend of yours and re-activate your HDD-installed copy for a very small nominal fee ?

The potentially scary stuff is that once they have all the information about Users' ID's, Game Disc Unique ID's, Consoles' Unique ID's, etc... all linked together and all... the limits of what they could do are 1.) the law 2.) their benevolence (customers feedback).

The really scary stuff is that a system like this one day could be progressively accepted by gamers and the vocal angsty minority will be just that, a minority.

Of course, I hope that our future is not THAT bleak.

 

[Panajev2001a]

ok, let me see if i understand this.


I buy a game.

I play it for 4 months, and the game is registered to Sony's/publisher's servers as the game belonging to me. I get Entitlements for buying the game or whatever.

I sell it off to gamestop. Next guy buys the game, pops it in, and the game checks the server to check the game disc ID and see what other systems its been played on.

He would not be playing it .

Unless the system has a provision for you to specify the GameStop's store and other stores as kind of like a SUPER-individual or if GameStop registers a unique store-wide GamerTag, how would you "allow" the other player to access the disc ?

One way could be that Gamestop as a unique, store-wide Gamertag: you have to specify that tag (and a certain amount of purchase price.... which might be 0 if the store wants to give you only store credit) to transfer ownership to GameStop and then Gamestop, when they sell the disc to another user, has to transfer ownership to the new buyer.

Potentially, though, this system COULD be used to cut off brick and mortar stores from the used games market and pushing it to a user-to-user kind of business transaction.

 

[Panajev2001a]

The way I understand this, the system simply rewards you for selling and giving your games. If that's all it is, I think that's fine.

Well, there are parts like this:

# The Content of the disc cannot be accessed by the user console unless, upon completion of the “registration” process mentioned earlier in the article, the Host Server submits access permission.

The DISC UNIQUE ID 230 uniquely identifies the disc 110. The contents of the disc 110 cannot be played on the user console 115 or other devices without access permission for the disc 110.

 

[Panajev2001a]

No... the only way you could sell it to GameStop is if GameStop puts the disc in a system belonging to them, then pays Sony's used game fee, of which you would get a percentage (spendable only toward Sony products) determined by Sony. This is the same process you would use selling the game to a friend.

I'm thinking this also means if I want to let my friend borrow a game, he may have to pay a rental fee. Or for that matter, if some rich guy owns two PS3's he may have to pay a fee to play a game on his second system.

Yes, I think you gave a pretty good summary here .


I apologize for all the bumps, but the article went live when I was probably still in bed.

 

[DCharlie]

damn, this might even be an end to "Flying gets" too...

"Error : the game you are trying to play has not been released yet. Game will be activated at 0:00 Thursday.... SUKKA"

...

"Error : the version of Fifa you are trying to play is not the latest version - please purchase the new version in order to contine"

 

[Kangu]

Well I'm suprised to see this coming from someone other than MS first. But I guess it's hard to lead the charge in something so controversial when your not the industry leader. If Sony does implement this I expect MS to follow suit shortly. Not sure about Nintendo. Seems like something they'd like (they're so down on emulators and all that) but they don't seem to fancy online anything.

 

[Pope Benedict XVI]

"Error : the version of Fifa you are trying to play is not the latest version - please purchase the new version in order to contine"

Damn right too. I mean, how does people continuing to play old games help the industry? It should be stamped out.

 

[DJ Sl4m]

Damn right too. I mean, how does people continuing to play old games help the industry? It should be stamped out.

Poor people usually buy a console when it's either in it's last year or after since most games are cheap and the console will be too.

If they don't have the money for the latest Madden or whatever, they usually buy whatever the newest is they can afford.

I'm just glad I'm not poor ;p

 

[BooJoh]

Well I'm suprised to see this coming from someone other than MS first.

But at the same time, Sony has been making some bold decisions lately. With power comes arrogance. Nintendo was once synonymous with gaming, and their arrogance contributed to their loss in the end. If you asked me a few years ago if Sony would do this, I'd say no way.. now? I can't be sure. I think it would be market suicide though.

I know the article specifies discs, but many many patents go unused or change into something completely different. I think the point at which something like this would more likely happen would be when we switch to downloading/streaming games. And the only reason we won't get the same consumer outcry then (at least on the scale we would get it now) is because the method of distribution will be so different that most people won't fully comprehend the amount of freedom they've lost.

I for one would prefer to own my games and do what I please with them, and if Sony did implement this in PS3, I'd be that much more likely to not get one.

 

[soul creator]

to a certain extent, I guess this is pretty much like XBLA, but with the ability to resell the product (and of course, this applies to retail games, and not downloads)? Tied to the system and "gamertag", with only that "gamertag" being able to play the original game...?

The only thing that doesn't really make sense is the whole idea of the original owner being able to "install" the game. I mean, Resistance on its own exceeds the core system hard drive, lol

 

[Tempy]

Phil Harrison and his posse are popping by next Tuesday. I'll try and raise the issue with them.

Edit: MONDAY.

 

[Grayman]

Well I'm suprised to see this coming from someone other than MS first. But I guess it's hard to lead the charge in something so controversial when your not the industry leader. If Sony does implement this I expect MS to follow suit shortly. Not sure about Nintendo. Seems like something they'd like (they're so down on emulators and all that) but they don't seem to fancy online anything.

nintendo is scared to let people talk to random persons online, I don't think they'd impliment any system of fans interacting on fear of predators using it.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

I think this will come to pass. Can you honestly name a company that is so fanatic about having proprietary formats and medias outside of Sony? I don't even need to touch on the rootkit issue. Fact remains, they do things on their terms, this is included in that. I don't buy used games, so this won't bother me. However, it will a lot of others. Due to that fact, I think publishers should get some of their money back. I think there is a better way of doing it, but EB/Gamestop shouldn't be reaping the benefits of a second hand sale. Their demise is coming though when the next systems ship with massive HDD. They will be left to sell Nintendo games

 

[Panajev2001a]

damn, this might even be an end to "Flying gets" too...

"Error : the game you are trying to play has not been released yet. Game will be activated at 0:00 Thursday.... SUKKA"

...

"Error : the version of Fifa you are trying to play is not the latest version - please purchase the new version in order to contine"

Hehe, this is why I do not like to be left to the mercy of any industry body. It is not what we imagine they could do NOW, but to realize that with a Unique User ID, a Unique Console ID, and a Unique Game Disc ID all stored in inter-communicating databases the only limits really are their benevolence and what the judicial system can stomp their butts for if they abuse of the system even though it would not be easy to start a lawsuit in such a scenario (on what grounds ? On the grounds of them being pric&s ?).

 

[Jonnyram]

Bebpo, I disagree with you about used game sales. It's even said in the original article that it's believed people who sell games use the money to buy new games. I personally think that rentals are bad but used games are ok. I think the used market in Japan is ****ed up at the moment, however, and needs something doing with it, but I certainly don't think sales will increase the amount you imagine until prices are dropped on a large scale. Sales are generally lower because of higher game prices and more competition from other media, in particular DVD. Since the launch of PS2, DVD sales have grown massively in Japan, so it's not surprising another industry has lost out because of it.

 

[cvxfreak]

What do the used game and rental markets do to help the industry? They should be gotten rid of completely as they only **** up everything in the game industry. But this is not the solution...I think (need to wait until we have more info on how this actually is gonna work).

EDIT: nevermind.

 

[gofreak]

Hehe, this is why I do not like to be left to the mercy of any industry body. It is not what we imagine they could do NOW, but to realize that with a Unique User ID, a Unique Console ID, and a Unique Game Disc ID all stored in inter-communicating databases the only limits really are their benevolence and what the judicial system can stomp their butts for if they abuse of the system even though it would not be easy to start a lawsuit in such a scenario (on what grounds ? On the grounds of them being pric&s ?).

We all (or most of us), make very sensitive disclosures of information to various bodies and companies all the time, and data is collected about us and so on. One can be paranoid about every potential usage or abusage of such data, or accept it as a facilitator for the services or products we use.

If a company has the intention of incentivising the sharing of games (be it lending or selling on or whatever), can someone propose a better system meeting the same requirements? Or do you think that under the embodiment described in the patent that they are doing more or taking more information than is necessary to implement such a system?

 

[Panajev2001a]

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')

They probably would have to pay a small transaction fee to Sony.

 

[Panajev2001a]

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.

Good idea, this was the way I initially was thinking this could morph into, but they need to get rid of the part in which says that disc access is conditioned on server side approval. Also, in your system too you would need some moment of Internet connectivity.

 

[Grayman]

We all (or most of us), make very sensitive disclosures of information to various bodies and companies all the time, and data is collected about us and so on. One can be paranoid about every potential usage or abusage of such data, or accept it as a facilitator for the services or products we use.

If a company has the intention of incentivising the sharing of games (be it lending or selling on or whatever), can someone propose a better system meeting the same requirements? Or do you think that under the embodiment described in the patent that they are doing more or taking more information than is necessary to implement such a system?

for people scared of the information thing(i'm not really, played a few mmos) they could simplify it down to handles, one amount of person info against theft(email account or something), offer prepaid cards in stores that replace using a CC.

The best thing coming out of this is newer sale numbers on games and continued revenue streams for masterpiece games that are difficult to find.

 

[Panajev2001a]

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.

Welcome to the modern days where companies and many legislators completely disagree with what you just said... .

 

[Panajev2001a]

Would people support this if it dropped new game prices to $29.99 for all games next-gen?

I think people would even if it meant $8 cheaper games...

Come on in some countries people are INSTALLING BLACK BOXES into their cars to get 10% off their car insurance!!!!

 

[BooJoh]

I don't see this as an issue of information, I see it as an issue of ownership freedoms. Granted there's the completely plausible and believable possibility of them tracking which games we play how much, and selling that information to marketers, but that's the least of my concerns here. I'm more aggravated by the simple fact that if I get a new game and want to play it with a friend, it's no longer a matter of just grabbing the game on the way out the door. Suddenly we're looking at verifications on my system, possible rental fees on his system, required internet connections, and all to just play a game that I've already paid $50-$60 for.

 

[Grayman]

Maybe a memory card/flash card system could fix that. It would probably still require internet though to verify non shared playtime.

 

[D3VI0US]

There's no way Sony's gonna implement this on PS3 cause there will always be a significant amount of users who aren't connected to the net. Not to mention the huge amounts of backlash over not being able to take a game over to a friends house and play it net connection or not.

Does this mean our digitally downloaded games on PS3 won't be playable at a friends place? I would imagine so which is bullshit. Nintendo's doing the same thing with VC stuff. I'd say that's an area in which Live is clearly better. Sure there are still some kinks like the game being tied to the console you bought it on for offline play unless you signed into Live. Kinda bullshit especially with the rate 360's break but at least you can take games to friends places.

 

[Ash Sparrow]

What a horrible idea, i wont buy any console that has this.

 

[Pope Benedict XVI]

There's no way Sony's gonna implement this on PS3 cause there will always be a significant amount of users who aren't connected to the net. Not to mention the huge amounts of backlash over not being able to take a game over to a friends house and play it net connection or not.

Maybe Sony could get round those problems by allowing the offline part of a non-verified game to be playbale, while not allowing the online features to be accessible.

In this coming generation of consoles, most people who are really into games will go online. Maybe Sony will be happy to at least control the exchanging of games amongst those avid gamers, while giving freedom to the generally more casual offline consumers (who probably buy far fewer games on average). This wouldn't completely solve the "problem" of eb/gamestop used-games, but it might reduce it significantly. Just like Microsoft couldn't do much to stop modding amongst people who didn't take their xboxes online, but still made a point of preventing Live users from having as much freedom to modify their consoles.

 

[Panajev2001a]

So what it if worked like this specifically:

There's a $10 activation fee when someone buys a new game from you. They hand you cash for what the game is worth minus the $10 that they're going to have to pay, and they pay $10 to sony when they activate it. For that $10, you the original owner get $10 in sony points sent back to you as compensation for the decrease in resale value. That's worth $10 to you, but doesn't cost sony $10 effectively. The margin within that $10 goes to sony for their online service et al, and back to the publisher.

If there are concessions made for when you have multiple PS3s in your home, or when you want to loan it to a friend, or if your PS3 breaks, then well..........it wouldn't be too horrible, would it?

We would also like to know if there is a fee for activating the HDD-installed games after you have let your friend borrow your game disc (probably so) and how much that fee is.

 

[P90]

PS: companies making money is their OWN concern. Not mine. Individual rights should always be greater than any company/government/organization.

I would debate that. It is a continuum sphere of rights of "individuals" vs. organized groups of "individuals" vs. the necessity for a ruling body with priviledged power to attempt to ensure justice. Companies employ "individuals". Some "individuals" wholly own companies. The governmental power to taxation and the rule of law is a imperfect necessity for a number of debateable areas of life to protect "individuals".

That all said, this case is black and white. Sony is trying to bilk gamers. IF this comes to pass then no PS3 for me, even if my favoite games are there.

 

[Tellaerin]

Due to that fact, I think publishers should get some of their money back.

Game publishers are no more entitled to 'get some of their money back' when someone resells an item they own than car companies or book publishers are. Why should they be? Once I've purchased the item, it's mine to do with as I wish, which includes giving it away or selling it to someone else. First-sale doctrine guarantees us that in the US. What you're advocating is for companies to take away that right, just because they're giving us a sob story about how the secondhand market is hurting them and how they'd make much more money if only they didn't have to deal with it.

As far as I'm concerned, that's hardly a sufficient reason to fundamentally shift ownership rights in this country. And believe me, a court ruling upholding Sony's right to implement a system like this would open the floodgates for every other industry where a market for preowned merchandise exists - if a precedent was ever established, every industry that supports a decent-sized market for preowned goods would be demanding a cut on all post-sale transactions, too.

Used book stores haven't killed the publishing industry. Used car lots haven't crippled the auto industry. Regardless of the boogeymen videogame publishers are trying to frighten us with ('ZOMG! IF WE DON'T STOP USED GAME SALES, THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WILL COLLAPSE! BUT YOU CAN HELP! ALL YOU HAVE TO DO TO SAVE GAMING IS TO RENOUNCE YOUR RIGHTS AS A CONSUMER AND EVERYTHING WILL BE A-OK!'), used game sales aren't going to kill gaming. Let's not be so quick to throw away our rights the minute some company starts throwing around doomsday scenarios - once you give those up, it's really tough to get them back.

 

[BooJoh]

Game publishers are no more entitled to 'get some of their money back' when someone resells an item they own than car companies or book publishers are. Why should they be? Once I've purchased the item, it's mine to do with as I wish, which includes giving it away or selling it to someone else. First-sale doctrine guarantees us that in the US. What you're advocating is for companies to take away that right, just because they're giving us a sob story about how the secondhand market is hurting them and how they'd make much more money if only they didn't have to deal with it.

As far as I'm concerned, that's hardly a sufficient reason to fundamentally shift ownership rights in this country. And believe me, a court ruling upholding Sony's right to implement a system like this would open the floodgates for every other industry where a market for preowned merchandise exists - if a precedent was ever established, every industry that supports a decent-sized market for preowned goods would be demanding a cut on all post-sale transactions, too.

Used book stores haven't killed the publishing industry. Used car lots haven't crippled the auto industry. Regardless of the boogeymen videogame publishers are trying to frighten us with ('ZOMG! IF WE DON'T STOP USED GAME SALES, THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WILL COLLAPSE! BUT YOU CAN HELP! ALL YOU HAVE TO DO TO SAVE GAMING IS TO RENOUNCE YOUR RIGHTS AS A CONSUMER AND EVERYTHING WILL BE A-OK!'), used game sales aren't going to kill gaming. Let's not be so quick to throw away our rights the minute some company starts throwing around doomsday scenarios - once you give those up, it's really tough to get them back.

Quite possibly the most important post in this thread.

 

[Emiru]

If true this is another reason sony wont win this gen.

 

[RuGalz]

There's a lot of interesting ideas in the patent. I'd love them to start the test in non-intrusive ways asap. The only way it's going to work out is like google's strategies as you mentioned in your article.

Edit: Re-reading the patent as oppose to just Panaj's article. It sounds to me that this is the similar licensing scheme like XBLA games except for retail games. Using XBL terms, basically once the game is registered to a gamertag, the game can be played if the license exists in some form. It's not very clear what they mean in the patent with regarding to the whole incentive point stuff. Everything is just speculation now. However it does raise question... So for games such as Luminus on XBLA will be costing near half the price of retail game (for full version), the ownership of the game would only be either to the registered gamertag and/or the console. Why are people so negative about this and not care about XBLA license scheme? If Sony does indeed reward the original owner in some form as the new owner pays small amount of transfer fee, in the end it all kind of works out evenly for users. Only stores that currently sell used games are getting taken out of the equation.

 

[Funky Papa]

Sony has been doing a lot of dumb moves lately, but one thing is to be a fool and something completely different is to be mad as a box of frogs. You have to be a raving lunatic to think you can pull this shit, and Sony it is isn't.

 

[Burger]

F U C K this noise.

Like they always say, without cracks, there wouldn't be any light

You can bet sony will eat my dick before I support that shit. Hell, I'm no fan of piracy, but if you really want to force me to pirate your stupid god damn games so be it. If it means you don't get my fuking money, happy bloody days mother****ers!

 

[pilonv1]

There's no way Sony's gonna implement this on PS3 cause there will always be a significant amount of users who aren't connected to the net. Not to mention the huge amounts of backlash over not being able to take a game over to a friends house and play it net connection or not.

This part deals with that

If you are now thinking “well when I play some games I will not be on-line with the console” to side-step the problem then think again as it is not such a difficult proposition to cache data on a permanent storage device included with every console ( I am looking at you PLAYSTATION 3’s HDD).

To me this means PSP style System Updates for PS3 on games. So you put in Madden 2008 and it says "Requires PS3 software version 2.81" and wont run unless you install it. When it updates it dumps a whole heap of DiscID data or whatever on the HDD. That's how you get around people not going online with their systems.

 

[thefro]

This is a bad idea for consumers, no matter how it's implemented. The only question is how bad it is, which depends on how far Sony takes it.

Just the hassle of messing with the "entitlements" to let you play a game at a friend's house, for instance, let alone letting them borrow a game is pretty much ceding the entire under 18 market to Microsoft and Nintendo.

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

Nevermind. It seems to work now.

@_@

 

[Oni Jazar]

Wouldn't this kill the rental market? Due to the high prices and places like gamesnflix I rent most of my games now. What if the ps3 wasn't network connected?

 

[Bad_Boy]

This part deals with that



To me this means PSP style System Updates for PS3 on games. So you put in Madden 2008 and it says "Requires PS3 software version 2.81" and wont run unless you install it. When it updates it dumps a whole heap of DiscID data or whatever on the HDD. That's how you get around people not going online with their systems.

but how do you, the orginal owner, get your money from sony (wether it be playstation bucks or whatever), if sony never knows that your game was activated?

 

[TTP]

Ok, me and Pana have been talking about this while he was putting together that article and this is how I understand the system will work (actually the system allows more, but this is how it will mostly used for at the end of the day). It's very simple if u look at it from the user pov.

1. You buy a new game. You pay 60$ for it
2. You sell that game to Johnny and Johnny gives you the money u asked him (say, 30$)
3. Johnny goes home, puts the game into the PS3 and, if he's connected to the net, you are given some Entitlement Points that you might later spend to buy stuff online.
3b. If Johnny is not connected to the net, you get shit, but you still got those 30$ already.
3c. If the "not connected to the net" Johnny sells the game to another user connected to the net, YOU finally get those Entitlement Point. (it's just a matter of whenever or not Sony servers recive the message "Yo, remember that new game that guy bought a month ago? Well, seems like it's running on another system now. Give that guy some Entitlement Points")
4. The seller of a second hand game doesn't get Entitlment Points (or he gets less than the original buyer did), but rather the money he can make from the transaction.

Of course you can buy TWO PlayStation 3 and pop the game in each of them to get Entitlement Points without actually selling your games to anyone. Which is how Sony plan to duplicate the PS3 installed base (obviously the 2nd system has to be linked to a different User ID. Say, your brother's PS3)

On a side note: this system may help preventing piracy.

 

[Drek]

Wouldn't this kill the rental market? Due to the high prices and places like gamesnflix I rent most of my games now. What if the ps3 wasn't network connected?

Its pretty clear in the pattent that you can store all this data to a storage medium (memory card, hdd, etc.), which will enable you to play but will connect to "home" as soon as you go on the network.

With this you can effectively play any game off-line entirely circumventing Sony's system. Basically if you aren't online this doesn't apply to you.

Its an interesting concept, but its acceptability is strongly regulated by what Sony and their partners decide to price transactions at. If its a small percentage of your sales with a minimal floor amount, kind of like running a paypal transaction or something, it'd be a pretty good deal. When Sony starts trying to make your friends pay real coin to play a game you already bought once, thats when the whole gaming community should get a lot more edgy and questioning.

I would imagine this could lead to rental chains getting special copies with universal access disc IDs. They'd probably either time expire or be "refreshed" by the rental outlet. In that setup renters would probably shit their pants with glee as it'd be a major blow to rental theft and better yet, a way to encourage timely returns (as the game will go into lockdown mode after X number of days).

As for the used game retail outlets, well, this is deliberately targetted at crippling them so I don't see any possible silver lining there. :lol

Its one hell of a slippery slope to start down though. I'm personally not a big fan of it in such a restricted sense. Entitlements for buying a new game, or lending it to a friend, etc. sounds great, but not when the coporate entities are so directly involved. If its profitable then at some point the customer will take a back seat to making money, typically sooner than later.

 

[Pope Benedict XVI]

Ok, me and Pana have been talking about this while he was putting together that article and this is how I understand the system will work (actually the system allows more, but this is how it will mostly used for at the end of the day). It's very simple if u look at it from the user pov.

1. You buy a new game. You pay 60$ for it
2. You sell that game to Johnny and Johnny gives you the money u asked him (say, 30$)
3. Johnny goes home, puts the game into the PS3 and, if he's connected to the net, you are given some Entitlement Points that you might later spend to buy stuff online.
3b. If Johnny is not connected to the net, you get shit, but you still got those 30$ already.
3c. If the "not connected to the net" Johnny sells the game to another user connected to the net, YOU finally get those Entitlement Point. (it's just a matter of whenever or not Sony servers recive the message "Yo, remember that new game that guy bought a month ago? Well, seems like it's running on another system now. Give that guy some Entitlement Points")
4. The seller of a second hand game doesn't get Entitlment Points (or he gets less than the original buyer did), but rather the money he can make from the transaction.

Of course you can buy TWO PlayStation 3 and pop the game in each of them to get Entitlement Points without actually selling your games to anyone. Which is how Sony plan to duplicate the PS3 installed base (obviously the 2nd system has to be linked to a different User ID. Say, your brother's PS3)

On a side note: this system may help preventing piracy.

Thanks for that post. It raises one issue though. If you're selling a game on ebay you're going to need to know whether the buyer will go online with it or not. If you think you'll get entitlement points you may be willing to accept a lower price than you would otherwise. I imagine it would be hard for a buyer to prove that his/her PS3 is online.