Support NeoGAF

[TheJollyCorner]

Marleyman, come on...

There are less than two weeks to go.
Then you can run around laughing & screaming I TOLD YOU SO or go into a corner and cry while eating Sony crow.

Either way, you've been working overtime with MS damage control since last week, man. Try to relax a bit.

 

[Endo Punk]

As long as I can wholly play offline I don't care if they implement anti-used game measures. Personally Im sick of retailers gauging sales from developers; preying on the clueless masses who want to save £5 instead of supporting the industry to make more awesome games.

 

[Ashes]

I love the 'sony is getting an easy ride' comment. There's a gaf led twitter campaign trying to get Sony to change their minds lol.

I wonder why they stop at games. They should stop you from selling your console too. I mean Sony and Microsoft have paid millions if not billions to develop the hardware. They should not let you profit from it. eh?

 

[abic]

I wish this whole "Sony is for the gamers" sentiment would stop.

Sony is not going to make a decision based on what is best for gamers. Their bean counters are going to forecast their profits and if they can make more money with DRM than they can without it then they will go in that direction and vice versa.

If they decide not to implement DRM at all it is because they feel they can make more money taking that route and nothing more.

If not listening to gamers causes backlash like XBONE and lower revenues, this will affect decisions.

This is why being vocal now and heaping hope on Sony, pressuring them to change is the best hope.

If they come out of this with a positive policy, they look good and get championed and gamers win -- it'll be all win win.

 

[Marleyman]

Marleyman, come on...

There are less than two weeks to go.
Then you can run around laughing & screaming I TOLD YOU SO or go into a corner and cry while eating Sony crow.

Either way, you've been working overtime with MS damage control since last week, man. Try to relax a bit.

MS damage control...figured someone would say that. I wish I worked for them however I am just a gamer who wants to know what in the hell is going on with both sides. MS, by implementing what they are doing, is a slap in the face to gamers. I just want to know if I am going to be slapped by both of them.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

News flash, Sony isn't going to say no to money.

That was said about charging for online gaming too.

Sony can leave money on the table, just like anyone else if needs be. It is simply a case of what they get in return for leaving it.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Yoshida - "So, used games can play on PS4. How is that?"

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...gamer-playstation-4-will-not-block-used-games

Yoshida - "More distressingly, when asked about online registration for used games, Yoshida said that the decision was up to individual publishers, and that Sony is "not talking about that plan" for its own first-party games."

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/02/sony-uk-exec-ps4-used-game-question-isnt-clarified-just-yet/

Gara - "Well, first of all, we haven't stated that second-hand games... we haven’t made a statement on the second-hand games question," Gara said. "The answer to the pre-owned question isn’t clarified just yet and we’re working through that and we’ll announce our position in more detail as and when we can."

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/02/sony-uk-exec-ps4-used-game-question-isnt-clarified-just-yet/

My take from sony's statements is that they are NOT going to be setting up a DRM system in the console itself, it will be up to publishers to make their own systems if they want a 24 hour license check like MS.

IMHO most publishers outside of EA and activision will not have the resources to actually do this.

We will see. If the choice is between 1 system with a total shit always on DRM for every single game and one where it is up to the publisher to make it themselves I know which one I would choose.

 

[ReaperXL7]

Except I'd wager that said third parties also believe that they can't survive without getting extra revenue from used sales, so supporting a console which doesn't allow them to do that would be self-defeating.

I question whether they're right on that point, of course, but I suspect they're seeing a catch-22, here. The question is whether they can convince Sony of that.

I dont think Sony will disallow them completely because Sony cant tell other publishers what to do with their games. It would still end up being better on PS4 because of Euro devs like CDPR, and Japanese publishers. I think its pretty clear though that publishers are not going to abandon a console with a userbase that will buy their games so the idea that publishers have all the power in this situation is pretty dense. This is also ignoring the advantage PS4 has with no net requirement.

it does not matter anyway, because there is always PC if things go sour and services like GOG enforce no DRM.

 

[Bunta]

Their continued silence is troubling.

Not really. I doubt they'll say anything till E3.

 

[Ashes]

My take from sony's statements is that they are NOT going to be setting up a DRM system in the console itself, it will be up to publishers to make their own systems if they want a 24 hour license check like MS.

IMHO most publishers outside of EA and activision will not have the resources to actually do this.

We will see. If the choice is between 1 system with a total shit always on DRM for every single game and one where it is up to the publisher to make it themselves I know which one I would choose.

EA have just backtracked from their used game sale charges. I don't expect them to flip flop again.

 

[daveo42]

Yoshida - "So, used games can play on PS4. How is that?"

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...gamer-playstation-4-will-not-block-used-games

Yoshida - "More distressingly, when asked about online registration for used games, Yoshida said that the decision was up to individual publishers, and that Sony is "not talking about that plan" for its own first-party games."

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/02/sony-uk-exec-ps4-used-game-question-isnt-clarified-just-yet/

Gara - "Well, first of all, we haven't stated that second-hand games... we haven’t made a statement on the second-hand games question," Gara said. "The answer to the pre-owned question isn’t clarified just yet and we’re working through that and we’ll announce our position in more detail as and when we can."

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/02/sony-uk-exec-ps4-used-game-question-isnt-clarified-just-yet/

I can agree that it looked like a little bit of back-peddling on the part of Sony specifically on how they would handly pre-owned games, but even at that point, we didn't have much of anything to go on. We still don't.

It could be that they backtracked to make them selves look better or it could be that Yoshida is aware of talks with publishers on the system they want to use, but it hadn't been finalized.

I'd like to think that the president of any company knows all the workings of everything going on within the company, but that's unrealistic. My best guess is he knew the used game stance was finalized and thought it was the same with how it would work with publishers when stuff was technically still on the table.

 

[Father_Brain]

My take from sony's statements is that they are NOT going to be setting up a DRM system in the console itself, it will be up to publishers to make their own systems if they want a 24 hour license check like MS.

IMHO most publishers outside of EA and activision will not have the resources to actually do this.

We will see. If the choice is between 1 system with a total shit always on DRM for every single game and one where it is up to the publisher to make it themselves I know which one I would choose.

Well, it wouldn't necessarily have to be implemented on a system level; I don't see how it would be technically impossible to implement an "online pass" that locks out the entirety of the on-disc content.

 

[DigitalOp]

Here's a hint Geoff: Sony has all the power here because publishers do not want (and cannot afford) to throw away such a large chunk of the market. They would be crucified by their shareholders.

They would be losing billions if they refused to publish games for the PS4 because Sony were to demand used games still work as they do now.

Sony can do whatever it wants, and they will have no choice but to fall in line.

Our only saving grace really, none of these publishers could survive with exclusive XBO games.. they would soley depend on install base of one system. Suicide.

 

[True Underdog]

That was said about charging for online gaming too.

Sony can leave money on the table, just like anyone else if needs be. It is simply a case of what they get in return for leaving it.

Is it possible that one big reason Sony didn't charge for PSN this Gen was because Xbox Live was already established and they needed something to help them get a good, competitive start?

I really doubt Sony is coming from a place of benevolence or caring about gamers, here.

As an aside, I'm really enjoying reading GAF right now. I wasn't around for the last console launch so I missed out.

 

[Ashes]

Our only saving grace really, none of these publishers could survive with exclusive XBO games.. they would soley depend on install base of one system. Suicide.

That and they give us a reason not to buy the content. Why do console manufacturers want to give us a reason not to buy their content?

 

[kaching]

Yoshida - "So, used games can play on PS4. How is that?"

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...gamer-playstation-4-will-not-block-used-games

Yoshida - "More distressingly, when asked about online registration for used games, Yoshida said that the decision was up to individual publishers, and that Sony is "not talking about that plan" for its own first-party games."

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/02/sony-uk-exec-ps4-used-game-question-isnt-clarified-just-yet/

Gara - "Well, first of all, we haven't stated that second-hand games... we haven’t made a statement on the second-hand games question," Gara said. "The answer to the pre-owned question isn’t clarified just yet and we’re working through that and we’ll announce our position in more detail as and when we can."

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/02/sony-uk-exec-ps4-used-game-question-isnt-clarified-just-yet/

Thanks, I hadn't seen Gara's comments. Yoshida's two comments aren't contradicting each other, but Gara's does backpedal.

It's still not on the same level as the massive game of Telephone that MS has gotten into with their reveal and subsequent followups.

 

[Fried Food]

There WILL be a system in place on PS4 that will piss gamers off. FACT.

Fact of the matter is, if their position was the same as it was with the PS3 they would have said so.

Now it could be that they had a new system and are now trying to move back the PS3 method, but thats unlikely.

 

[gutter_trash]

looks like 3rd parties are behind the whole thing and that Sony took a different approach than Microsoft on the matter.

hypothetically, 3rd Party A can go ahead with DRM while 3rd Party B opts to not DRM

 

[KimonoNoNo]

Well I'm not going to assume anything between now and E3.
All will come out in the fullness of time.

 

[RELIGHT]

Another great youtube vid by Jeremy Jahns regarding used games. Check it out

Should probably add it to the OP as well

 

[TangoAlphaLima]

Here's a hint Geoff: Sony has all the power here because publishers do not want (and cannot afford) to throw away such a large chunk of the market. They would be crucified by their shareholders.

They would be losing billions if they refused to publish games for the PS4 because Sony were to demand used games still work as they do now.

Sony can do whatever it wants, and they will have no choice but to fall in line.

I kinda agree. Publishers can't afford to ignore the PS4 market, especially not if their games are easily ported from one next-gen platform to the other.

However, I wonder if the used games DRM Microsoft will employ will allow them to justify a higher fee to publish on their platform. After all, if their DRM helps publishers make more money (I'm skeptical that it will), I'd imagine Microsoft would want a cut of that extra profit.

 

[ascii42]

I kinda agree. Publishers can't afford to ignore the PS4 market, especially not if their games are easily ported from one next-gen platform to the other.

However, I wonder if the used games DRM Microsoft will employ will allow them to justify a higher fee to publish on their platform. After all, if their DRM helps publishers make more money (I'm skeptical that it will), I'd imagine Microsoft would want a cut of that extra profit.

MS makes money on every game sold for their system anyway, so more game sales would already result in more money for MS.

 

[kinggroin]

Oh boy. I have a feeling many a gamer will learn the cold hard truth about corporations and their priorities very soon.

No white knights in this industry.

 

[TangoAlphaLima]

MS makes money on every game sold for their system anyway, so more game sales would already result in more money for MS.

Source?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I've just never heard of it as being couched as a percentage of each sale that Microsoft earns. And most of the push for used game DRM has seemingly come from the publishers.

 

[BlastProcessing]

There WILL be a system in place on PS4 that will piss gamers off. FACT.

Fact of the matter is, if their position was the same as it was with the PS3 they would have said so.

Now it could be that they had a new system and are now trying to move back the PS3 method, but thats unlikely.

It is absolutely possible that Sony is implementing a new DRM system, it is also possible they aren't. I would imagine that both camps are represented amongst Sony's decision makers. I assume that there is a spreadsheet somewhere at Sony, and what ever option it estimates will make Sony the most money is what they will do. They will weigh the new revenue versus the possible competitive advantage vs Microsoft.

The way I see it, Sony's best strategy is to keep quiet either way:

1. If they are going forward with a similar system it makes sense to let Microsoft take the heat and let Microsoft justify Online DRM to the user base.

2. If they have decided that they could get a competitive advantage by differentiating themselves. It is in their best intrest to withhold that info from Microsoft as long as possible. Making sure Microsoft commits to a system that Sony brass has decided is detrimental.

Either way it is a game of chicken. As potential consumers we should assume that both companies are going ahead with Online DRM and be vocal with our opinions about it.

 

[Marleyman]

Thanks, I hadn't seen Gara's comments. Yoshida's two comments aren't contradicting each other, but Gara's does backpedal.

It's still not on the same level as the massive game of Telephone that MS has gotten into with their reveal and subsequent followups.

Yoshida "not talking about first party games" is a bit concerning, no?

 

[Palette Swap]

My take from sony's statements is that they are NOT going to be setting up a DRM system in the console itself, it will be up to publishers to make their own systems if they want a 24 hour license check like MS.

IMHO most publishers outside of EA and activision will not have the resources to actually do this.

We will see. If the choice is between 1 system with a total shit always on DRM for every single game and one where it is up to the publisher to make it themselves I know which one I would choose.

I can't wait for EA to run their own authentication servers. That will end well lol.

 

[mrklaw]

I'm still confused by how the publishers can vibe so convinced this is a good idea. There is no research into this that I can find. Yes, restricting used game sales and giving a cut to publishers might provide them more revenue. But likewise, it may reduce overall consumer liquidity and reduce new sales - actually reduce revenue potentially.

Jumping in with both feet seems incredibly brave/arrogant/stupid

 

[Shadow Moses]

10 years on Xbox Live and I'm off with the MS drm bullshit. As long as Sony don't mess up they just gained a subscriber to PSN.

 

[commedieu]

I can't wait for EA to run their own authentication servers. That will end well lol.

what the fuck did you just put out into the universe.

I think you're right. Big companies will have the authentication servers for certain titles. Smaller? Maybe not so much. Publishers will allow their games to be played offline or not, and Sony will do the whole leave it to publishers route(like the cell which no one used). The only saving grace for sony will be 100% offline play, and no strange drm for their first party titles. If not, welp... theres plenty of room in Off-Topic.

Its going to be interesting.

I'm still confused by how the publishers can vibe so convinced this is a good idea. There is no research into this that I can find. Yes, restricting used game sales and giving a cut to publishers might provide them more revenue. But likewise, it may reduce overall consumer liquidity and reduce new sales - actually reduce revenue potentially.

Jumping in with both feet seems incredibly brave/arrogant/stupid

I think they figure if they all do it, gamers will have no choice but to pick any one of the consoles. And you know, they are going to be right. However, it will be the end of a lot of generations of gamers (consoles). It will bring.. a new, smaller, but maybe more profitable gamer? Maybe the brodudes outnumber the rest of us.

Just like at the club.

 

[spirity]

I'm fully expecting Sony to pull something nasty out of the bag, I just don't know what it will be. It may or may not be what we're expecting Microsoft to do, but regardless, they've got something planned and I'm not getting good vibes.

What will surprise me is if Sony -don't- have anything bad to announce at E3. That will be a shocker.

 

[Tellaerin]

Oh boy. I have a feeling many a gamer will learn the cold hard truth about corporations and their priorities very soon.

No white knights in this industry.

Depends. If Sony doesn't implement a DRM system to lock out used games on first party titles and leaves the decision up to third parties, they look like big damn heroes next to MS (potentially boosting hardware sales), and the blame for any DRM falls on the shoulders of the big pubs (making their first party offerings look more desirable next to more heavily DRM'ed alternatives). So there are potential benefits for them here.

Yoshida "not talking about first party games" is a bit concerning, no?

From the way it was phrased, I read that "not talking about" as "we're not talking about implementing anything like that ourselves", meaning that they had no plans of doing this. We'll find out soon enough.

 

[FuturusX]

Oh boy. I have a feeling many a gamer will learn the cold hard truth about corporations and their priorities very soon.

No white knights in this industry.

Indeed, what about the lesser of two evils?

There WILL be a system in place on PS4 that will piss gamers off. FACT.

Fact of the matter is, if their position was the same as it was with the PS3 they would have said so.

Now it could be that they had a new system and are now trying to move back the PS3 method, but thats unlikely.

You might want to learn the difference between your opinion and fact...Hint - What you believe might not align with the actual facts. Shocking...but true.

 

[ascii42]

Source?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I've just never heard of it as being couched as a percentage of each sale that Microsoft earns. And most of the push for used game DRM has seemingly come from the publishers.

There's always a license fee to release a game on any console, hopefully this article helps:
http://www.ign.com/articles/2006/05/06/the-economics-of-game-publishing

 

[Violater]

Oh boy. I have a feeling many a gamer will learn the cold hard truth about corporations and their priorities very soon.

No white knights in this industry.

Sony copying the competition as usual.

 

[Dabanton]

Is it possible that one big reason Sony didn't charge for PSN this Gen was because Xbox Live was already established and they needed something to help them get a good, competitive start?

I really doubt Sony is coming from a place of benevolence or caring about gamers, here.

As an aside, I'm really enjoying reading GAF right now. I wasn't around for the last console launch so I missed out.

They wouldn't have dared charge for it how it was in the beginning, they would have been dead in the water. And they made a promise not to do so which, for their credit they kept.

Now they have a pretty good setup and the PS4 is a fresh start and they know people will be willing to pay. I think they'll dip their toes into paid online elements this gen.

 

[BlastProcessing]

I'm still confused by how the publishers can vibe so convinced this is a good idea. There is no research into this that I can find. Yes, restricting used game sales and giving a cut to publishers might provide them more revenue. But likewise, it may reduce overall consumer liquidity and reduce new sales - actually reduce revenue potentially.

Jumping in with both feet seems incredibly brave/arrogant/stupid

Especially in an industry where one bomb can cripple a company. These guys are trying to hang themselves with an inch of rope. It's kind of adorable really.

 

[Minions]

Actually Sony should respond now and not waste time on BS during E3.

Not going to happen. Shit takes years (weeks) for changes to get approved in corporations.

 

[kaching]

Yoshida "not talking about first party games" is a bit concerning, no?

No, I read it same as Tellaerin - as not talking about requiring online registration for used copies of first party games. They'll leave the option open to 3rd parties but not pursue it for their own games.

 

[Afrikan]

at the end of the day, these Sony execs and Kaz himself has to answer to Investors.

I personally think Sony is taking full advantage of presenting last at E3, and are waiting to find out the price MS wants to charge for 2nd hand Game registration...or if Microsoft full goes with it or if there are some changes. And then I think Sony will adjust certain announcements on stage from there believe it or not.

so basically, yeah wait till E3.

 

[beast786]

There WILL be a system in place on PS4 that will piss gamers off. FACT.

Fact of the matter is, if their position was the same as it was with the PS3 they would have said so.

Now it could be that they had a new system and are now trying to move back the PS3 method, but thats unlikely.

 

[Violater]

Even if PS4 were to have no DRM for first party titles, that would that be enough.
I will get my multi-platform games on PC where they will look better anyway even with only 2gb GDDR5.

 

[Afrikan]

No, I read it same as Tellaerin - as not talking about requiring online registration for used copies of first party games. They'll leave the option open to 3rd parties but not pursue it for their own games.

it always starts like that with Sony....it seems like they always want to do the "right" thing initial, or it can be looked at as the safe thing....but they have that intention in the beginning. But with everyone else doing it, they will eventually have to follow.

didn't Sony want to keep PS3's first party games at $49.99, where as everyone else was selling for $59.99.....but eventually Sony moved up?

 

[Pennywise]

Even if PS4 were to have no DRM for first party titles, that would that be enough.
I will get my multi-platform games on PC where they will look better anyway even with only 2gb GDDR5.

Congrats for that.


@Topic
Who are the big publishers who are actually giving a shit about this drastic forms of DRM ?
Ubisoft is releasing games on PS4/Xbone like Watch Dogs while there is a certain DRM free version with the Wii U.

Activision never even used a online pass system, even though we know that this would have provided a decent amount of money for them.

So that leaves EA ?

 

[TangoAlphaLima]

There's always a license fee to release a game on any console, hopefully this article helps:
http://www.ign.com/articles/2006/05/06/the-economics-of-game-publishing

That was a pretty vague article. "The exact licensing fee varies based on the manufacturer, as well as any deals they may give a publisher, but it can generally be anywhere from $3 to $10 per unit."

Anyway, the point still remains, if Activision would otherwise pay to license Call of Duty with the Xbone and the PS4, let's say it's the low end $3 per unit price, why would Microsoft not bargain with them for a larger cut if their used game DRM means additional profits for Activision? I realize that more sales also benefits Microsoft, but it's hardly an equal benefit, especially when the Xbone offers the used game DRM that the PS4 does not (presumably).

Ultimately, the used game DRM is a bargaining chip for Microsoft, one that they hope increases not only the number of new games sold, but also justifies a higher licensing fee than what Sony charges for the PS4.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

The one thing ms should learn from the discussion about ps4 drm is that if they pull the "left up to the publishers" card it will be enough for some to overlook the issue. Personally I think thats a cop out.

 

[mrklaw]

Especially in an industry where one bomb can cripple a company. These guys are trying to hang themselves with an inch of rope. It's kind of adorable really.

Dos Sony have a route to offer publishers a way to test this? Xbox does no used games, PS4 allows used games. Publishers get to compare revenues and see which works, consumers get a choice of which to support?

(Doubt it personally, just throwing it out there)

 

[ReaperXL7]

The one thing ms should learn from the discussion about ps4 drm is that if they pull the "left up to the publishers" card it will be enough for some to overlook the issue. Personally I think thats a cop out.

it would be, but we would still be able to avoid the publishers, and games that require it. I cant wait for E3 so hopefully all of this shit can be laid to rest, its hard to even be excited for any of this shit anymore honestly.

 

[TRios Zen]

IF Sony's answer was as simple as, "there are no restrictions on used games, period". then there would be absolutely NO REASON to wait till E3 for that announcement.

If you have that huge of an advantage versus your competitor, than you announce it early, you announce it often and you ride it hard at E3, there is no reason to wait and risk confusing prospective customers.

That being said, they COULD be discussing ways around it, if they think they can to garner that advantage, and that could be why they haven't announced anything yet.

 

[neorej]

If PS4 implements this shit in any form, I will invest my console budget for this year in my gaming rig, tune it up from upper mid range to upper range.
I remember how installs on the PS3 were not mandatory and it was up to the developers.