Support NeoGAF

[Mifune]

Could be like old school PC drm before required internet.. lol

Pinwheels with every game!

 

[Knux-Future]

This, people. This!

Sony seems to be stepping back out of the debate and firestorm by saying, "We're not getting involved," but that doesn't mean a publisher can't require you to sign in every time you want to play a game. They've had these connections going on current gen consoles for years, particularly on EA titles, and all EA would have to do is only make starting the game possible if you can login.

Sony's approach is still admirable, but I think we're dreaming if we think there won't be plenty of titles that have DRM regardless of what console you're on.

The ideal is that only the bigs do it and the majority doesn't...kinda like this gen.

I expect a lot more to do it but that's still a win since that can easily go away after a few disaster launches like Diablo and Sim City.

In theory,

Im not celebrating yet tho.
don't want to be crushed but If Sony doesn't do this (and block used and put online behind paywalls...although the latter two aren't complete deal breakers) then I'm buying a PS4 regardless of the launch titles..day 1 out of support.

 

[mikey1123]

This is good to hear. I can't buy a console that is dependent on if i have internet or not.

 

[DC1]

But to what extent? My Steam library can also be enjoyed old-school for a couple weeks. Sony could have no restrictions on their first party releases, but that doesn't mean EA will do the same if the console still has an online DRM infrastructure in place.

I'm as eager to move on from this online/used games debacle as all of you, but we still don't have a clearer picture of what DRM will be like on the PS4 than we had after the Sony event in February.

And you lay this at Sony's feet?

If EA requires and online connection to play a primarily single player title and its identified on the box then we have the option to not purchase said title.

We can not/should not lay the blame on the console provider.

 

[darkistheway]

touche, i was purely analyzing that in a hypothetical stance. i agree that DRM could decrease game sales, gaming popularity, etc blah blah. i realize there is a lot of other factors/effects of the policy that should be considered.

I am basing my perspective on what happened with ITunes; the companies wanted DRM, Apple gave it to them. Music, like videogames, has a trading culture. DRM prevents this and people reacted. Apple stopped in response.

I've seen people claim that the NeoGAF reaction exists in an echochamber but I think the larger videogame culture won't accept this type of enforcement. Gamestop is one thing but lending, trading, renting and private sales are also affected and I can't see it working the way Microsoft has pitched it.

 

[BRocknRolla]

If EA requires and online connection to play a primarily single player title and its identified on the box then we have the option to not purchase said title.

We can not/should not lay the blame on the console provider.

Absolutely agree. It's collaboration with publishers on this kind of system that bothers me. (Put the collaborators against the wall with the rest of the enemy combatants, I say!)

 

[Kintaro]

And you lay this at Sony's feet?

If EA requires and online connection to play a primarily single player title and its identified on the box then we have the option to not purchase said title.

We can not/should not lay the blame on the console provider.

Bullshit. By even allowing the option (if they even do this) Sony is supporting it. Saying "They can do what they want!" and shrinking into a hole would be bullshit. If the PS4 is truly for the gamers, they will say "No, we will not allow any of this shit on our system. Period."

 

[Fried Food]

Internet connection is the least of most of us' worries

 

[theytookourjobz]

Bullshit. By even allowing the option (if they even do this) Sony is supporting it. Saying "They can do what they want!" and shrinking into a hole would be bullshit. If the PS4 is truly for the gamers, they will say "No, we will not allow any of this shit on our system. Period."

I really believe that Sony truly cares about gamers but they are also a business. First party games sell like shit and they wouldn't risk going against the big third party publishers even if it means they have to allow DRM.

 

[Kintaro]

I really believe that Sony truly cares about gamers but they are also a business. First party games sell like shit and they wouldn't risk going against the big third party publishers even if it means they have to allow DRM.

So, all of those 3rd parties would just up and ignore the PS4 and treat it like the Wii U? No. The publishers would suck it up and put out their games on the system because they need the money.

 

[MrBambinoDent]

Bullshit. By even allowing the option (if they even do this) Sony is supporting it. Saying "They can do what they want!" and shrinking into a hole would be bullshit. If the PS4 is truly for the gamers, they will say "No, we will not allow any of this shit on our system. Period."

I don't really think this is how things go in the corporate world! Let's face it, Sony is much more keen on gamers than MS but they can't go against the publishers! They might try to reduce the publishers' greed effect on gamers and that's all they can do! They are gonna get screwed by share holders if they mess with this generation after what they faced in the first years of PS3 life!

 

[Yoda]

On the one hand, we shouldn't trust either MS or Sony, of course... But on the other, Sony's been damn clear about this topic. Sony's current policy is to not require Always Online DRM. Now that could change and they could use that RFID patent, but I sincerely doubt that Sony will implement system-level always online DRM for the mere fact that if they did it they know the first question that will come out of everyone's mouth is "How will you prevent something like the month-long PSN Outage from making our console into a brick?" Hell, Nintendo's still worried about epilepsy and still won't feature Porygon or its evolutions in the Pokemon anime after the whole Electric Soilder Porygon incident. People remember stuff like that.

This x1000 We shouldn't blindly defend Sony or Microsoft... lets not forget they are for profit corporations. However, there is no need to condem the other if they have clearly stated their position just because we would rather the former not implement said policy (Used game DRM).

 

[Voror]

This is something I haven't understood entirely when thinking on it. How much power do publishers have over companies like Sony and Microsoft? I understand that systems need games in order for them to sell of course, but if Sony, MS, or Nintendo just decided not to wouldn't the publishers be losing a lot of money potentially? Especially given how much is being spent these days on these AAA games?

 

[Kintaro]

I don't really think this is how things go in the corporate world! Let's face it, Sony is much more keen on gamers than MS but they can't go against the publishers! They might try to reduce the publishers' greed effect on gamers and that's all they can do! They are gonna get screwed by share holders if they mess with this generation after what they faced in the first years of PS3 life!

Again, do you seriously think 3rd parties would turn their nose up at Sony over DRM. That is a LOT of lost sales. So, if they want to drive themselves out of business quicker. By all means! They can fry for all I care.

 

[theytookourjobz]

So, all of those 3rd parties would just up and ignore the PS4 and treat it like the Wii U? No. The publishers would suck it up and put out their games on the system because they need the money.

If Madden '14 or Call of Duty doesn't come out for PS4, that's much worse for Sony than EA or Activision.

 

[theytookourjobz]

Again, do you seriously think 3rd parties would turn their nose up at Sony over DRM. That is a LOT of lost sales. So, if they want to drive themselves out of business quicker. By all means! They can fry for all I care.

I think you're overestimating how many PS4s and XB1s are going to be sold. Those big publishers are still going to be making the majority of their money on the current gen systems for at least another year.

 

[BRocknRolla]

Bullshit. By even allowing the option (if they even do this) Sony is supporting it. Saying "They can do what they want!" and shrinking into a hole would be bullshit. If the PS4 is truly for the gamers, they will say "No, we will not allow any of this shit on our system. Period."

I really disagree. I believe, as much as possible platforms should be dumb receptacles for the media we choose to use them for. Much as I don't want my ISP deciding what I can and cannot do with my internet connection, I don't want Sony or MS telling me how used games or DRM are to be dealt with.


A publisher could require 3 different kinds of authentication, $100 up front, and a $15 a month fee for their game, and while I might not want nor agree with it, I don't want my console maker making that decision for me. Sony should simply allow you to play games. You as the consumer should have the right to determine what games you will and won't play and what policies you will and won't support. In this scenario, Sony is placing the choice in consumer hands, where it firmly belongs.

 

[MrBambinoDent]

Again, do you seriously think 3rd parties would turn their nose up at Sony over DRM. That is a LOT of lost sales. So, if they want to drive themselves out of business quicker. By all means! They can fry for all I care.

I can't say you don't have a point here, and I still hope Sony will handle this DRM issue pretty well simply because I can see a new spirit in Sony, so different from how they handled the PS3 launch after almost dominating a whole generation with the PS2! Now they know it's a different game and they are not alone in this, so in order to win they have to play it differently!

 

[BigDug13]

This, people. This!

Sony seems to be stepping back out of the debate and firestorm by saying, "We're not getting involved," but that doesn't mean a publisher can't require you to sign in every time you want to play a game. They've had these connections going on current gen consoles for years, particularly on EA titles, and all EA would have to do is only make starting the game possible if you can login.

Sony's approach is still admirable, but I think we're dreaming if we think there won't be plenty of titles that have DRM regardless of what console you're on.

It's a bit easier to avoid games from specific publishers than it is to skip an entire console generation of hardware. If PS4 had mandated the same stuff the XBone is, I would have skipped this generation. Now I only need to skip specific games.

 

[RagnarokX]

Shuhei Yoshida: Oh yes, yes, you can go offline totally. Social is big for us, but we understand there are some people who are anti-social! So if you don't want to connect to anyone else, you can do that.

PS4: the console of choice for sociopaths!

 

[MrBambinoDent]

A publisher could require 3 different kinds of authentication, $100 up front, and a $15 a month fee for their game, and while I might not want nor agree with it, I don't want my console maker making that decision for me. Sony should simply allow you to play games. You as the consumer should have the right to determine what games you will and won't play and what policies you will and won't support. In this scenario, Sony is placing the choice in consumer hands, where it firmly belongs.

Totally agree with what you said! People who say Sony is doing the same as MS are just twisting the truth! Even if some publishers ask for some sort of DRM it won't be the same as MS shit! By then PS4 will have a two advantages over the Xbone, free online gameplay and some games (at least) that doesn't need DRM and therefore can be bought used no problem.
As a result it's gonna a better investment to buy such games with the possibility of flipping them anytime, unlike MS bullshit!

 

[clutch.as.it.gets.]

Yeah it seems that the PS4 can be played just like a PS3 (if you want to) which is cool.No connection every 24 hours bullshit will be required.

Yep, seems so. If true and no always online or 24h or whatever online check is required, sony will get my gaming money.

 

[BRocknRolla]

It's a bit easier to avoid games from specific publishers than it is to skip an entire console generation of hardware. If PS4 had mandated the same stuff the XBone is, I would have skipped this generation. Now I only need to skip specific games.

Very true. It is much easier to avoid publishers or developers with draconian policies rather than a console which has the policies built in. This is precisely why I hope Sony goes the direction of hands off.

 

[SpyGuy239]

This is great news. Period.

Also I think I might be "anti-social"

 

[MrBambinoDent]

Very true. It is much easier to avoid publishers or developers with draconian policies rather than a console which has the policies built in. This is precisely why I hope Sony goes the direction of hands off.

And this will possibly happen with publishers like EA who won't just lose the online pass money without a substitute!

 

[biggersmaller]

I believe, as much as possible platforms should be dumb receptacles for the media we choose to use them for. Much as I don't want my ISP deciding what I can and cannot do with my internet connection, I don't want Sony or MS telling me how used games or DRM are to be dealt with.


A publisher could require 3 different kinds of authentication, $100 up front, and a $15 a month fee for their game, and while I might not want nor agree with it, I don't want my console maker making that decision for me. Sony should simply allow you to play games. You as the consumer should have the right to determine what games you will and won't play and what policies you will and won't support. In this scenario, Sony is placing the choice in consumer hands, where it firmly belongs.

 

[Baki]

If Madden '14 or Call of Duty doesn't come out for PS4, that's much worse for Sony than EA or Activision.

I disagree. EA/Activision miss out on 50% of their sales. 10 Million units is not something to sneeze at.

It hurts Acti/EA because they can be replaced.

 

[MrBambinoDent]

I disagree. EA/Activision miss out on 50% of their sales. 10 Million units is not something to sneeze at.

It hurts Acti/EA because they can be replaced.

Yup, it's gonna be like a game between publishers. Like if Activision enforced this DRM BS and EA didn't, the FPS scene on PS4 is gonna be dominated by BF4, they will end up racing back under Sony's terms. But this is like a bet Sony won't necessarily take.

 

[jvm]

Very interesting moves by Sony. The question of how you get some DRM without an internet connection and potentially without their NFC/RFID technology is then quite interesting.

I've considered the possibility that they'll require a key-response that you call in over the phone if you don't have an internet connection. Basically it uses a unique identifier on your PS3 and your game that you pass to Sony over the phone, then receive a key back that you type into your PS3. That would be interesting to see.

The other thing that came to mind was how Amazon was able to put a 3G connection in all the topline Keyboard Kindle 3 models ($170 or less for the whole device). You never paid an access fee, and you could even use it for greyscale web browsing. I never found a place that I couldn't get a signal if I tried, and I took mine across the country on one trip. What if Sony did something like that just for authentication of discs.

Anyway, this is such an interesting time. I can't wait to see what happens.

 

[Syphon Filter]

I disagree. EA/Activision miss out on 50% of their sales. 10 Million units is not something to sneeze at.

It hurts Acti/EA because they can be replaced.

Those 50% will nearly all go to xbox then. cod is that type of game.

 

[captainraincoat]

The last quote in your OP is the wriggle room.

The system isn't online required, but Sony have left the doors open for publishers to state that their games are and thus have Xbox One style DRM.

Sony appear to be playing the clever PR game, but if they allow publishers to use Anti-used game DRM/online check requirements etc, they will, I think we all know that. The difference is that Sony will then just hand wave and (rightly) blame publishers. Of course on a practical level that is a meaningless difference.

So yes, PS4 "Doesn't require online" is true, with a massive * next to it, probably.

and im pretty sure the reason why MS has decided to go down the DRM route is because of EA...and if EA release all of their games with the DRM restrictions on Xbone then you can be sure they will do the same on PS4....sony are simply twisting the truth

 

[Ahasverus]

Oh yes Sony that's the way it should be!

I'm sure companies that will register onlin games are the ones with no games worth playing, like EA or Activision. Or Ubisoft, and while I like their games, i can live without them.

 

[VicDaMoan03]

So being that the system doesn't ever have to be online, there is no way to regulate used games right?

 

[Laughing Banana]

For the sake of so many of you, I hope Sony is not lying about any of its statements.

Because if they do....

 

[captainraincoat]

Oh yes Sony that's the way it should be!

I'm sure companies that will register onlin games are the ones with no games worth playing, like EA or Activision. Or Ubisoft, and while I like their games, i can live without them.

99% sure its ea wanting online drm.....activision gets their money by season passes and still selling 2 year old games for near new prices. ..mw3 here in aus is still $80

 

[Amir0x]

For the sake of so many of you, I hope Sony is not lying about any of its statements.

Because if they do....

"Because if they do... we'll have been lied to and the uproar will be even louder."

What's to lose again, exactly?

 

[fallagin]

For the sake of so many of you, I hope Sony is not lying about any of its statements.

Because if they do....

If they are then they will (hopefully) have all of this uproar turned back against them. Otherwise though they seem to be in a pretty good situation.

 

[Baller. PhD]

I don't see what people are rejoicing about. Yoshida still made that comment about online checks being "up to the publisher." That's fucking DRM. Just because PS4 doesn't require it doesn't mean it won't be the de facto standard. It's not enough for Sony to say they won't force it -- they need to say it's not allowed. Online passes are one thing, but that quote was ambiguous... it could mean online passes, it could mean CD keys.

Not really sure what you're trying to do here Amir0x... besides possibly kill the momentum of our #PS4NoDRM thing.

 

[Laughing Banana]

"Because if they do... we'll have been lied to and the uproar will be even louder."

What's to lose again, exactly?

Nothing I guess, except for maybe some preeetty shamed faces

Well... hopefully they won't pull something so egregious like that, since heavens know Sony needs all the goodwill they can get...

...But corporations, eh, you'll never know. Well, we'll see I guess.

 

[Amir0x]

I don't see what people are rejoicing about. Yoshida still made that comment about online checks being "up to the publisher." That's fucking DRM. Just because PS4 doesn't require it doesn't mean it won't be the de facto standard. It's not enough for Sony to say they won't force it -- they need to say it's not allowed. Online passes are one thing, but that quote was ambiguous... it could mean online passes, it could mean CD keys.

Not really sure what you're trying to do here Amir0x... besides possibly kill the momentum of our #PS4NoDRM thing.

Really?

If accurately reporting the news results in momentum death for #PS4NoDRM, then so be it. Seriously *rollseyes*

 

[Pennywise]

99% sure its ea wanting online drm.....activision gets their money by season passes and still selling 2 year old games for near new prices. ..mw3 here in aus is still $80

Yeah, because EA has so much power :X
EA can't live without Sony.

Besides WHY exactly are they still developing Wii U games then ?

 

[Baller. PhD]

Really?

If accurately reporting the news results in momentum death for #PS4NoDRM, then so be it. Seriously *rollseyes*

You're not reporting anything, all of that news is old. The ambiguity you speak of is from Yoshida's quote saying that online registration would be up to the publishers. What does that mean? Online passes? CD keys that are tied to your Origin/U-Play/Battle.net accounts and can't be resold? That's the ambiguous part. How much control to publishers have here? Sony won't say.

 

[Live Free or Die]

People are still thinking ps4 will require always on Internet connection? Wow.

 

[famousmortimer]

They said in february that it didn't require online. That's not news.


The used game DRM they have is RFID-ish and doesn't require an internet connection. The system as described to me was somewhat convoluted sounding but basically each new user of the game has more of it locked behind a paywall. Not sure if it can even be looked up... so if you buy used you have no idea if you are the 2nd or the 10th.


I'm glad they clarified again that it doesn't require online but we already knew that. And I already knew it from the february comments and the people I talked to which gave me the info spurring me to make the #ps4nodrm thread in the first place.



In other words: Baller, chill Everyone else, this isn't really news.


And letting third parties require people to make accounts isn't new. I had to make an account to play Defiance. Most MMOs require that. I'm fairly certain that's all that Yoshida was getting at... that they can still do that.

 

[ShroudOfFate]

I'm glad this is finally getting a thread so people can see that Sony isn't going the same route as Microsoft with DRM. Every comment they've made so far suggests that imo.

 

[DC1]

Bullshit. By even allowing the option (if they even do this) Sony is supporting it. Saying "They can do what they want!" and shrinking into a hole would be bullshit. If the PS4 is truly for the gamers, they will say "No, we will not allow any of this shit on our system. Period."

Ok:

Consider publishers who release games that are 100% online driven (Defiance, Heroes, Dust etc.)

Is it Sony or MS's policy to to force the publisher to provider an off line version? or block the publisher/developer if they don't?

 

[jrDev]

Nice catch Ami, that Game Informer quote says it all; it's like Microsoft don't plan on selling this console overseas and smaller countries. They seem so stupid with this outlook. It's all America America USA USA, it's slightly infuriating the way this is being planned...

 

[Baller. PhD]

And letting third parties require people to make accounts isn't new. I had to make an account to play Defiance. Most MMOs require that. I'm fairly certain that's all that Yoshida was getting at... that they can still do that.

I hope that's what he was getting at too, and up until a couple of weeks ago I'd have thought that it's definitely what he was getting at. Different landscape now...

Ok:

Consider publishers who release games that are 100% online driven (Defiance, Heroes, Dust etc.)

Is it Sony or MS's policy to to force the publisher to provider an off line version? or block the the publisher/developer if they don't?

That's different, those games require the Internet to play. It's one thing for publishers to make you log in to play their MMO or give you the option to login and sync your Need for Speed stats across platforms. It's another thing to make you login to input a CD key for the latest Need for Speed and not be able to let someone borrow the game without them buying a key of their own. That might seem like an unlikely scenario, but two weeks ago I'd have said that the Xbox 720 requiring you to login every 24 hours would be an unlikely scenario too. Yet here we are.

 

[clem84]

Then that settles it for me. WiiU and PS4 next gen.

 

[famousmortimer]

I hope that's what he was getting at too, and up until a couple of weeks ago I'd have thought that it's definitely what he was getting at. Different landscape now...

Well assumedly they could have done that this gen for single player games or whatever they wanted... and didn't. If DRM isn't system wide but is up to the publisher... IMO publishers are going to learn very quickly that DRM hurts sales more than it helps recoup money later from used games. For instance... there was a resident evil game on the 3DS where you couldn't erase the only profile on the game making it impossible to trade in, let a friend borrow or whatever. It bombed so hard that a month later they made an announcement that they were producing carts without that restriction.