Support NeoGAF

[TTP]

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.

You are right. In order to prove that, the system would allow to sign some king of user-to-user agreement:

1. Seller agrees to sell the game at less if the buyer will go online with it.
2. The buyer proves his good intentions by sending to the seller some king of "permission asking" message via the PS Network.
3. Seller gives permission granting access to the disc content for when the buyer goes online. (If the buyer, contrary to the agreement, doesnt go online he's ****ed even if the seller greenlighted him. The Sony server acts as some kind of notary: "oh, I see the buyer subscribed an agreement with the seller that states that the former has to go online in order to access the disc content. Let's see... oh yeah, the buyer is online with that game. Here u go. Enjoy" )

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

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.

I think what really needs to be clarified is the "lending policy". Divvying out used game prices between you, GameStop, and Sony isn't awful. However there should be no restrictions if I want to give my friend a copy of a game for as long as he or she wants it. I still have my friend's GranTurismo A-Spec. If they do implement this "Friends Exclusion" clause, however, it will completely undermine the point of the initiative thanks to the internet and message boards and even eBay. "Here I'll sell you this for $10 bucks, just give me your Fun-Timez-Tag and I'll put it on my list of Fun-Timez-Palz and you won't have to pay anything extra."

And for someone saying "Entitlement Management is under Commerce, this isn't commerce," what exactly would you call points that you get and then echange them for online goods and services?

 

[Moneyhats2k5]

I really have no idea what Sony is doing here with the "Entitlements", but it better be freaking cool, because if it isn't, they are going to be grilled for it, and no one is going to be going easy on them. :/

 

[TTP]

I think what really needs to be clarified is the "lending policy". Divvying out used game prices between you, GameStop, and Sony isn't awful. However there should be no restrictions if I want to give my friend a copy of a game for as long as he or she wants it. I still have my friend's GranTurismo A-Spec. If they do implement this "Friends Exclusion" clause, however, it will completely undermine the point of the initiative thanks to the internet and message boards and even eBay. "Here I'll sell you this for $10 bucks, just give me your Fun-Timez-Tag and I'll put it on my list of Fun-Timez-Palz and you won't have to pay anything extra."

And for someone saying "Entitlement Management is under Commerce, this isn't commerce," what exactly would you call points that you get and then echange them for online goods and services?

Well, I think there wont be ANY restriction to game sharing within friends. Normally, you will be free to play your friend's games (he will get Entitlements Points) if you dont previously agree with anything special (like my eBay example above).

Edit: Sorry, misread your post. Fixed mine

 

[Pope Benedict XVI]

You are right. In order to prove that, the system would allow to sign some king of user-to-user agreement:

1. Seller agrees to sell the game at less if the buyer will go online with it.
2. The buyer proves his good intentions by sending to the seller some king of "permission asking" message via the PS Network.
3. Seller gives permission granting access to the disc content for when the buyer goes online. (If the buyer, contrary to the agreement, doesnt go online he's ****ed even if the seller greenlighted him. The Sony server acts as some kind of notary: "oh, I see the buyer subscribed an agreement with the seller that states that the former has to go online in order to access the disc content. Let's see... oh yeah, the buyer is online with that game. Here u go. Enjoy" )

Oh ok, I see. I don't really see why Sony wouldn't go ahead with this for PS3. We're told they want to go six or seven years with this generation, that's a long time for them to put up with the used-game market that we know they hate.

This system is a pretty ingenius and dastardly way to cripple that market, AND it probably won't really piss people off that much. I don't detect nearly as much outrage here on GAF as i expected, and outside GAF i think the reaction would be much more mild. Meanwhile publishers and developers might really like it.

 

[Rei_Toei]

My compliments Panajev, interesting article.

 

[TTP]

Oh ok, I see. I don't really see why Sony wouldn't go ahead with this for PS3. We're told they want to go six or seven years with this generation, that's a long time for them to put up with the used-game market that we know they hate.

This system is a pretty ingenius and dastardly way to cripple that market, AND it probably won't really piss people off that much. I don't detect nearly as much outrage here on GAF as i expected, and outside GAF i think the reaction would be much more mild. Meanwhile publishers and developers might really like it.

Indeed. The outrage will rise if the system isnt flawless (like u dont get access to the disc content albeit you went online or you are not awarded your deserved Entitlment Points after selling/lending the game). It MUST be 101% bug free.

 

[Pope Benedict XVI]

And for someone saying "Entitlement Management is under Commerce, this isn't commerce," what exactly would you call points that you get and then echange them for online goods and services?

That was me who mentioned it was under commerce. I was just making a side reference to the idea that was knocking around a while ago that Entitlements were just the PS3's Achievements. I was dismissing that idea, not this exchange system.

 

[Panajev2001a]

In Japan? Hell yes.

Used games are the #1 cause for the lowering sales of games in that country. If a game sells 100k on the charts, in reality there about 300-500k people who are going to be playing it, but 200-400k of them will be playing it through used copies that they buy in mint condition for 1000yen-3000yen cheaper within a week or two or three of release.

Get rid of used games completely in Japan, and I would bet $1,000 that you would see those numbers on the weekly charts double for total units moved per week.

So many people in Japan have the mindset of "Why buy a game on release date, when I can get it for 2000yen less in a few days?"

2,000 Yen less in a few days ? :lol, in many stores I saw much older games sold used at 100 Yen less .

 

[DCharlie]

This system is a pretty ingenius and dastardly way to cripple that market, AND it probably won't really piss people off that much. I don't detect nearly as much outrage here on GAF as i expected, and outside GAF i think the reaction would be much more mild

Theres not much point in getting upset right now - although the specifics of how it works on a technical level , the important info : can we still lend games? how much is it to change ownership ? how simple is the system to use etc.... haven't been answered and until we get those answers, it's not worth stressing over.

 

[TTP]

can we still lend games?

Honestly, DCharlie, it's impossible you wont be able to do that. I give it for granted that you can do that based on the simple fact that not everybody will be online with their systems.

How simple is the system to use?

Now that's a good question. But if it's simplier than eBay (which looks "complex" at first and yet is pretty popular) it will do its job fine.

 

[duk]

i do not support this, unless they lower the price of each game to like 20 bucks

edit: nvm i still don't support this, somehow i feel like they are taking away my gaming freedom

 

[Panajev2001a]

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.

It is not only buying used, lending... it is also the fact that such a system in place would collect, link and use A LOT of unique data that identify each console, each user and each game.

 

[Panajev2001a]

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

Edit: MONDAY.

Gret opportunity, should they get to read the article before the interview or will you just pop it out when they get to the meeting ?

 

[Panajev2001a]

I don't see this as an issue of information, I see it as an issue of ownership freedoms.

They are one and the same. The second is a possible result/consequence of the first: the second is made easy by securing the first.

 

[gofreak]

it is also the fact that such a system in place would collect, link and use A LOT of unique data that identify each console, each user and each game.

Even with just a 'regular' online system you could this (passively). I've not exhausted every possibility in my head, but without even telling the user, any online network could collect all sorts of data similar to what's being suggested here.

 

[Panajev2001a]

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.

Thanks for putting together this post.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Even with just a 'regular' online system you could this (passively). I've not exhausted every possibility in my head, but without even telling the user, any online network could collect all sorts of data similar to what's being suggested here.

It could, but if it did without the users agreeing to it formally (you said passively) they would be sued for all their money .

 

[DCharlie]

Honestly, DCharlie, it's impossible you wont be able to do that. I give it for granted that you can do that based on the simple fact that not everybody will be online with their systems.

well - i don't see how they could do this because it's a bit daft - but the fact that you don't go online all hinges on the fact that you have to make sure that no matter who you lend the game to never goes online. Because the first person who does will have their PS3 id + game id logged in the system as the owner. :/

Now that's a good question. But if it's simplier than eBay (which looks "complex" at first and yet is pretty popular) it will do its job fine.

me personally - i don't want to have to deal with this sort of crap just to lend games to people/sell what is mine/buy from friends :/

 

[gofreak]

It could, but if it did without the users agreeing to it formally (you said passively) they would be sued for all their money .

Beyond an agreement it'd be passive though. And you know those service agreements cover their asses in virtually any possible scenario. But I don't see why I should get upset over the information collecting possibilities of this based on technical possibility when same exists with virtually any gaming network you could sign up to.

 

[Pope Benedict XVI]

One way to deal with the lending issue would be to allow the owner of a game to transfer entitlement to play the game while retaining the right to reclaim that entitlement at any time. That way friends could swap games without the bother of exchanging points or paying money to Sony, while presumably anyone looking to buy a game would not like to be at the original owner's mercy in that way.

 

[Panajev2001a]

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?

Well, in the terms of the patent... games that require activation (remember: not all games have to store a Unique ID Address and thus be subjected to this system: how would you play PSOne and PSTwo discs since they do not have either Unique ID Address and Unique ID ?) would NOT play at all unless they were granted access by the Host Server.

 

[Panajev2001a]

One way to deal with the lending issue would be to allow the owner of a game to transfer entitlement to play the game while retaining the right to reclaim that entitlement at any time. That way friends could swap games without the bother of exchanging points or paying money to Sony, while presumably anyone looking to buy a game would not like to be at the original owner's mercy in that way.

That could be another way, but the patent's system sidesteps the whole issue: you do not NEED your game disc back because you can still have it on your HDD. I suppose that setting a time limit for the transfer of ownership could be VERY easily implemented.

 

[duk]

i guess now we know entitlements are not like achievements at all :lol

Next up! you don't really own the hardware either!

 

[Panajev2001a]

Wouldn't this kill the rental market?

Which would make publishers and console makers very happy IMHO.

 

[Pope Benedict XVI]

Maybe games could come in two versions: one is more expensive and has none of this stuff, the other is cheaper but requires activation etc.

 

[Suikoguy]

Maybe games could come in two versions: one is more expensive and has none of this stuff, the other is cheaper but requires activation etc.

Bad idea, that would create more confusion then necessary.

 

[HocusPocus]

Which would make publishers and console makers very happy IMHO.

As a gamer I prefer to make myself happy and be able to rent. I don't collect games. If everyone adopted this model I'd probably just go back to PC gaming.

 

[krypt0nian]

Wow people actually are defending this. <adds silly people to the ****ed in the head list>

 

[NinSoX]

Maybe they should have a test market with this idea, see how it goes first. Not in North America, test it in Europe first ;-)

 

[duk]

so let me ask the people defending this a question...

Would you guys be willing to pay a small fee when you watch a used movie, read a used book, listen to a song? (knowing that you don't have to pay anything now)

 

[Panajev2001a]

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")

Thanks for the post TTP , but in the covered system you have to specify the User who will get access to your game and he does have to connect online so that the server can modify all related databases and register the transfer of ownership.

Also, if Johnny gives the game to the other user, according to the patent he would not be able to play it unless YOU the original owner had authorized him (you would still be the current owner of the game until Johnny goes online and completes the authorization process).

As I said in the other post, this system does not assume that right away ALL games mandatory have a Unique ID Address and thus there could be games that sidestep this method at least in the beginning, but you could bet all online enabled titles (the ones that ship with a "console must be connected to the Internet" sticker) would be the best candidates to start an initial roll-out of this technology.

 

[Panajev2001a]

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.

The contents of the disc 110 cannot be played on the user console 115 or other devices without access permission for the disc 110.

How do you get access permission ? Back to square one my friend .

 

[gofreak]

Would you guys be willing to pay a small fee when you watch a used movie, read a used book, listen to a song? (knowing that you don't have to pay anything now)

I'm either misunderstanding something badly here or you are. I believe the idea is that you would effectively be buying the used game through the platform-holder instead of a retailer. You already have to pay for used games, Gamestop doesn't give em out for free. If you're talking about paying to take a lend of a game (i.e. having to rent games from your friends rather than take a lend for free), that's one of the more pertinent questions of the discussion, but not one anyone has an answer for. I'd guess you could lend for free. Maybe someone can correct me if I've totally misunderstood the suggestion.

 

[TTP]

Because the first person who does will have their PS3 id + game id logged in the system as the owner. :/

That's a good point.

 

[duk]

I'm either misunderstanding something badly here or you are. I believe the idea is that you would effectively be buying the used game through the platform-holder instead of a retailer. You already have to pay for used games, Gamestop doesn't give em out for free. If you're talking about paying to take a lend of a game (i.e. having to rent games from your friends rather than take a lend for free), that's one of the more pertinent questions of the discussion, but not one anyone has an answer for. I'd guess you could lend for free. Maybe someone can correct me if I've totally misunderstood the suggestion.

i guess we're confused still... need more info.

i can see ebgames/gamestop/etc going mad over this :lol

 

[Buggy Loop]

Oh my god, sure been a while since we talked on MSN pana or else im sure you would've talked about this before your article (nice article btw )

I dont like sony's idea one bit, from their point of view its all fine and dandy, they put an halt to piracy, they replace every gaming stores for used games (money$$$), and they make even more money with entitlements percentage only spendable @ sony store.

But for the consumer.. eh What if i want to trade X or Y game for a game on another console? OR use that cash for whatever i goddamn want? Can i buy beers with entitlements?

Wow seriously, sony has BALLZ of steels if they pull this off.

 

[StoOgE]

What happens if your system breaks and you need to replace it?

Also, Im pretty sure they will get sued, and they will lose. Property rights dont work this way, at all in this country, and Im glad they dont. If I buy something at fair market value its mine. If I want to turn around and resell it, light it on fire or give it to a friend thats my business.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Oh my god, sure been a while since we talked on MSN pana or else im sure you would've talked about this before your article (nice article btw )

Thanks Buggy, if we were chatting when I read the patent for the first time you would have seen me on fire :lol. I did not take it well .

 

[Panajev2001a]

well - i don't see how they could do this because it's a bit daft - but the fact that you don't go online all hinges on the fact that you have to make sure that no matter who you lend the game to never goes online. Because the first person who does will have their PS3 id + game id logged in the system as the owner. :/

If a game employs this system (it might not be initially mandatory for all games, but just maybe for selected online-dependent games first to start an easy and small scale roll-out/testing of the whole system), how would the person you lend the game to play the game if in order to get access to it the user has to go online ?

 

[Emiru]

Wow people actually are defending this. <adds silly people to the ****ed in the head list>

You shouldnt really be surpised, its not the first time Gafers defended the stupid things sony has done.

 

[TTP]

But for the consumer.. eh What if i want to trade X or Y game for a game on another console?

If the X or Y game is a PS3 one, u still get Entitlements for selling/trade in for another console game.

OR use that cash for whatever i goddamn want? Can i buy beers with entitlements?

As I understand it, Entitlements are just bonuses added to the cash you make by selling your game. It's like 30$ cash + 20 Entitlement Points.
You can use that cash to buy beers and the Entitlements to buy a new vehicle for Motorstorm.

Bare in mind that this is a patent and as such covers a lot of applications and possibilities that wont necessarely be applied in the end. It might be much simplier than it looks like by reading that cryptic document.

 

[DCharlie]

If a game employs this system (it might not be initially mandatory for all games, but just maybe for selected online-dependent games first to start an easy and small scale roll-out/testing of the whole system), how would the person you lend the game to play the game if in order to get access to it the user has to go online ?

i'd suspect that sony wouldn't mandate that you go online to be quite honest - that would be quite silly (although that was the plan for Bluray verification at one point i believe ) - so what you'd have is

Owner (never been online) - PS3id+gameid on HDD
Friend (never been online) - PS3id+gameid on HDD

first one of you to go online gets the game "registered" to them.

But yeah - actually thinking about it , it all hinges around you connecting online - if Ps3 can't dial the "mothership" it'll never know the details - so there are final details that are still missing.

Mandated internet connection would suck balls, and i don't think Sony would do that.

 

[TTP]

What happens if your system breaks and you need to replace it?

Looks like everything is also stored on the memory card and is linked to your "Gamer Tag" anyway much like on Xbox Live (where you dont lose your Live Arcade games when the system breakes)

 

[TTP]

first one of you to go online gets the game "registered" to them.

Maybe upon going online u may be asked if you are the owner of that game (just the first time you do that, not EVERY time of course). Your friend can just say no and he wont be registered. If he does say yes, he's not your friend anymore

 

[Traumahound]

So, this would also ensure that any Entitlements you earn for selling your Sony-brand products can only be used to purchase future Sony-brand products. No chance to trade your PS3 games for Xbox, Wii, or DS games. Clever. Evil, but clever.

 

[Skilotonn]

I remember when this first surfaced months ago... holy crap, they are still doing this?

So basically, the days of being in a big circle of gaming buddies and bringing over a game no one else is interested in/likes just to check it out are over? Jeez... I can't believe they are really going through with this...

And I'm guessing that you're gonna need a credit card to pay for these costs, and that's something that not alot of people have... I know how Sony thinks about the used market and so on, but they don't realise how much people live on used games, or wouldn't even have played certain games if it weren't for the used games market - not only is that basically killed, it also makes you pay for just borrowing a game? This is going to alienate A LOT of people... they're just looking out for themselves (and in a lesser sense, their developers), and not for the gamer who is just getting by, or is trying to experiment with games by any means necessary...

If they go through with this, it really shows that the PlayStation 3 is in no way a gamer's console - it is expensive and delayed due to their quest to get Blu-Ray popular, and it is trying to make money off of trading and using games... this is really not sending a good message to hardcore and casual gamers whatsoever...

Why aren't they making this more public when the release is in about two months? Or is this not definete yet?

 

[TTP]

So, this would also ensure that any Entitlements you earn for selling your Sony-brand products can only be used to purchase future Sony-brand products. No chance to trade your Entitlements for Xbox, Wii, or DS games. Clever. Evil, but clever.

Fixed. Yes, it's clever and evil.

But then again, people still seem to think that Entitlments are the only thing you get from the trasnactions. Actually, they are just a bonus. You still get your standard green dollar papers. Entitlements are just *incentives* (as the patent states several times) to make the transaction (to share), not all you get from it.

It's very similar to the point some stores or flight companies give you upon buying their goods/tickets. The difference, here, is that you get them from selling stuff too. Obviously the patent doesnt rule out the possibility to get Entitlements by buying new games. They can be used to push the sales of a game ("BUY THIS BEFORE THANKSGIVING AND GET 1000 ENTITLEMENT POINTS!!!") or whatever the publisher decides to do with them. Another example could be: Konami: "Sell your MGS3: Snake Eater to get a special discount on MGS3: Subsistance".

 

[gofreak]

I remember when this first surfaced months ago... holy crap, they are still doing this?

It's not actually been discussed much at all I don't think. This is NOT the same patent as was floating around before (the Kutaragi patent).

So basically, the days of being in a big circle of gaming buddies and bringing over a game no one else is interested in/likes just to check it out are over? Jeez... I can't believe they are really going through with this...

..


Or is this not definete yet?

Ding ding. This is only a patent. Even the description is just an embodiment that doesn't necessarily represent what an implementation would actually look like. We're just discussing the possibilities.

I think there's a fair bit of confusion here about what this is or isn't, and what it means right now.

 

[Mojovonio]

this is Sony, the makers of the Rootkit and the company famous for DRM implications that restrict use of a product after purchase.

I don't see how any of this is good news.