Support NeoGAF

[GraveRobberX]

I think Sony giving the option to publishers rather than making it mandatory will help them out in the long run

Sorry, EA says no to second hand sales to Battlefield 4, on the X1 and PS4, it will get attached to your account and only your account
X1 = mandatory install on HDD + license to your account/console + Origin shenanigans
PS4 = "Disc Benefits" + same stuff as X1

Most likely Ubi/Activ will follow suit, Sony will start out gently, if it catches on add it into the fold for all 1st party release

 

[madmackem]

Do you even read?

Thats not even the same thing, its the online pass like alot of pubs went with this gen.

 

[bobbytkc]

Offline play is already confirmed for the PS4:

Sony VP of WWS: Playstation 4 can still be enjoyed old school without an Internet connection at all

Yoshida: PS4 Games Playable Offline

Used games:

Sony: PS4 can play used games

SONY'S JACK TRETTON "TOTALLY OPPOSED TO BLOCKING USED Games"

Social features are optional:

PS4 Social features are completely optional

Gaming is #1 priority for Sony:

Sony Exec: PlayStation 4 ‘Absolutely Focused on Gamers’
PS4 to be “a next-gen console for gamers and made by gamers”?

PS4 is “gaming console at heart"

Great summary. And just in case people STILL have doubts about always online DRM.

Sony Never Considered Making The PS4 Always-Online

 

[joshcryer]

Sony seems to be tuned to what gamers want, I think if they did have any BS in there they would remove it between now and E3 and backload it with other stuff. What we do know is that Sony's PS4 conference was in the end a social media conference and a spec conference with a few games shown. With that we can sort of see that in the end Sony did exactly what MS did and showed the non-gamer stuff first. Go back and watch the conference, Sony focused a lot on social media and streaming and sharing. They did show a few games but some were multi-platform and few were running on a live system.

 

[dragonelite]

Kotaku said this last year in their initial Orbis (PS4) leak:



Perhaps it's changed since then but that sounds pretty similar to Microsoft's setup.

Exact same drm setup.
Hope they changed it from all the backfire.
If all this drm is true i imaging everything going to the shitter for the game industry.
Bubble burst so to say.

 

[Artorias]

I don't think Sony themselves will block used games, but I think EA and possibly others will through a pass system and Sony will allow it.

Maybe I'm pessimistic but I have been wondering if that's why EA announced the end to the online pass system. Get a little good PR before people realize all of their games next gen will need to be activated. It would be really hard for them to justify, but I can't see any other reason they would abandon the online pass system right when others are adopting it. It has no doubt been hugely profitable for them to get a few bucks off used or rented games.

 

[Yoshi]

Only thing that is certain is that either there will be some kind of DRM/ account linking for retail games or we won't be able to install games and play without the disk in.

I'm fine with not being able to play the game without the disc being in the console. Actually if MS were to offer two skus for their games, one that can be installed but needs online verification and one that can only be played using the disc, I'd actually buy Xbox One (and every game in the disc-needed-variation). Moreover, if MS offered one version that could be played offline using the disc, or from an installation alone when online, and one SKU that only offers the first option for one cent less, I'd take the latter option. Being able to play without the disc is worth zero to me, not being able to play a game offline indefinitely is inacceptable in every way for me.

 

[GYNGA]

We'll see, but probably not. PS4 is shaping up pretty nicely

 

[Oersted]

Is it just me, or this the narrative on GAF right now that if Sony would implement somekind of used games block, they would have been forced, almost somekind of victim, even when they would use it for their own games?

Thats not even the same thing, its the online pass like alot of pubs went with this gen.

5 are not really alot. Now its 4.

 

[enzo_gt]

Do you even read?

Almost completely forgot they have pushed locking out used games harder than anyone else this gen. We might see a similar system to what MS has now but the used games fee might be the price of a pass, rather than the full game price. I think that's more likely. Reap the rewards though provide a cheaper system than their competition to act as an "advantage" to consumers. "Hey I only have to pay $10 instead of $60! Sweet deal!". Also lets them through their own previous statements without direct contradiction.

 

[Krilekk]

Its gonna be pretty shitty if they lock used games, but the console won't be always online, and its atleast more powerful.

Maybe it isn't always online like X1, just once every 24 hours. Which isn't always. But yeah, it's gonna be more powerful. Let's see if that actually shows in the games. BF4 reveal was next gen for me but right now it looks like neither console will achieve that level of fidelity.

 

[Sean*O]

I don't see why any publisher would release a game that couldn't be resold, just the necessary disclosure of that fact would probably be enough to ruin the sales of that title. It wouldn't be worth it, and if they thought about doing it before they have probably crossed that option off their list after seeing all of the negative backlash MS is taking right now.

 

[googleplex]

Do you even read?

Do you even read? The PSN pass only covers the online multi-player part of a game. Not the single player.

OI personally have no issues with Sony's PSN pass/codes. I know some do but I don't.

 

[1st Course]

Do you even read?

Online passes =/= blocking used games.

 

[Corto]

Only Sony knows. But the fact that MS went this route (always online, used games lock) doesn't necessarily mean that Sony will too. Sony this current gen had very different policies than MS concerning DRM (account sharing/region locking) and online services pricing. I expect some compromises but Sony will have an user friendlier approach, I believe.

 

[davepoobond]

of course there's going to be "bad things" about the ps4, there always is something bad about anything.

it just matters "how bad" and "what kind of bad" it actually is and if it matters to you personally.

i fully expect it wont be as bad as xbox one, but i anticipate some bad stuff, still. probably nothing unique from xbox one, though.

 

[staticneuron]

Always online? Yeah; used games? Uhm..

Sony likes to provide options and leve it up to consumers and developers. The PSPgo was simply that. An option sold along other PSP's that had solid media. There was no way Sony was going to abandon that (they love creating proprietary media) and the biggest example is seeing what happened with the Vita.

As far as Used games they are going to leave the choice with pubs..... just like they do now. I have not seen any pub trying to do it now, and I doubt any pub wants to be the first one to stick their neck out. Having that functionality built into the console and mandated by the manufacturer takes the blame off of the pubs and puts the risk back in MS's lap if it isn't taken well.

I doubt sony would take that route at all.

 

[gofreak]

Does anybody expect Sony not to do exactly what Microsoft does with used games and such?

Re. DRM, a reminder:

Even taking back a step from here, PlayStation 4 can still be enjoyed old school without an Internet connection at all.

http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/2013/03/20/michael-denny/

So, whatever DRM system PS4 has, based on what's been described by MS, it cannot be exactly the same as MS's, if the above is true.

This doesn't mean Sony won't have a new DRM system for PS4. But there are many middle grounds along the way to what MS is describing.

EA drops online passes. If Sony would go a different route they'd have kept them at least for their platform.

So why aren't EA keeping them for PS3 and 360 which will still be significant revenue generators going forward? Maybe EA simply found them to be not very effective, and not worth the admin cost.

Platform holders have historically made different business-affecting policy decisions. Just because one does one thing in one way doesn't mean others will do the same in the same way.

Anyway, on your more general point about 'bad news' - no system is perfect, and there are still a couple of traps that we have yet to see if Sony will clear gracefully or not. However anticipating bad news in light of MS's seems a bit silly. If and when it happens we can talk about it then. I kind of doubt Sony is making as many bad moves as MS is so far though. From what we know so far that is comparable they're not.

 

[enzo_gt]

Do you even read? The PSN pass only covers the online multi-player part of a game. Not the single player.

OI personally have no issues with Sony's PSN pass/codes. I know some do but I don't.

The point of an online pass is precisely to devalue used purchases, and they do so by locking out the most popular features; online multiplayer. Doesn't matter what part they lock out though, that's semantics. Point is, they're not opposed to restricting content in your games if you buy used and charging you extra. They like the idea so much they made it standard across their first party titles, and I can see them going further.

 

[madmackem]

I read the OP twice and still fail to see the point.

Is this another "lets try and shift some negativity on Sony for some theoretical reason" thread?

Yes, alot of people seem hurt after the reveal and are trying to play the what if game to make themselves feel better. Strange we only know what we know now, lets wait and see for the rest, ms may have more bad news who knows.

 

[libregkd]

Its been stated quite a few times that the PS4 doesn't need to be connected to the internet at all to enjoy gaming. How would activation codes/fees even work under a situation like that?

The online passes, while a shitty practice, are different from completely blocking used games.

 

[JonathanPower]

Kotaku said this last year in their initial Orbis (PS4) leak:



Perhaps it's changed since then but that sounds pretty similar to Microsoft's setup.

Yes, if those sources know Sony plans better than Yoshida himself I guess they can be right.

 

[madmackem]

The point of an online pass is precisely to devalue used purchases, and they do so by locking out the most popular features; online multiplayer. Doesn't matter what part they lock out though, that's semantics. Point is, they're not opposed to restricting content in your games if you buy used and charging you extra. They like the idea so much they made it standard across their first party titles, and I can see them going further.

I cant, i wont be opposed to ms stance if it only covered the mp aspect of games. Ms is locking down the whole aspects it seems and then asking for money to allow you to play any of it. I will get outraged if and when sony do the same.

 

[def sim]

I have no reason to trust one companies executives over the other in this instance. Publishers and devs might want this enough that we may see a similar system on PS4. It's safer to assume it's a possibility until after E3.

 

[enzo_gt]

I cant, i wont be opposed to ms stance if it only covered the mp aspect of games. Ms is locking down the whole aspects it seems and then asking for money to allow you to play any of it. I will get outraged if and when sony do the same.

Locking out parts of the game or the entire game is the same to me; they serve the same goal and purpose. It's anti-used-game-consumer. MS is just being maximum greedy about it, but we all know they both want the same. We can only hope Sony doesn't take it as far as Microsoft does, especially when it comes to installing/using on another console in the case of you bringing a game to a friend's house

 

[Game Guru]

If Sony does what Ms have done then that would leave the Wii U being the only console that isn't doing it. That doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Why would publishers 'push' these two to implement this into their system but not Nintendo? I said this is another thread but I think MS have taken this decision to garner 3rd party support and that's it. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong but I don't see Sony doing it at this point.

Well, assuming that both Sony and MS are doing it, then it is likely that the third-parties tried to push Nintendo to do it. Nintendo, being Nintendo, told them where they could take and shove it. Nintendo was the most likely to be the hold out of any scheme like this because Nintendo is known for their stubborness concerning third-parties. If there was any console maker who wasn't going to cater to the wants of the third-parties, it was going to be Nintendo.

 

[staticneuron]

The point of an online pass is precisely to devalue used purchases, and they do so by locking out the most popular features; online multiplayer. Doesn't matter what part they lock out though, that's semantics. Point is, they're not opposed to restricting content in your games if you buy used and charging you extra. They like the idea so much they made it standard across their first party titles, and I can see them going further.

Doubt that. I always saw it as way of recouping cost on server expectations. If a game sells a million units a certain level of gamer attrition is expected and priced. If the pub finds that for one game that sold a million they are now maintaining 1.5 million accounts and the attrition is off, that cuts into their pockets.

If a pub is big enough, they may see this across many titles released over the years.

Here is the thing about online passes. It doesn't harm the seller nor the buyer of the game. It may change the valuation of the used product but as always the "service" is always separate and has it's own TOS and rules. Something the PC world is familiar with already and something the console world needs to adjust to now they are crossing over into that shared territory.

Yes, alot of people seem hurt after the reveal and are trying to play the what if game to make themselves feel better. Strange we only know what we know now, lets wait and see for the rest, ms may have more bad news who knows.

What really surprises me is the sheer amount of threads since the XB one reveal that speculates the same topic. It is getting pretty obvious at this point in time.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

Maybe it isn't always online like X1, just once every 24 hours. Which isn't always. But yeah, it's gonna be more powerful. Let's see if that actually shows in the games. BF4 reveal was next gen for me but right now it looks like neither console will achieve that level of fidelity.

Keep fighting the good fight, dude.

I hate fucking obvious FUD threads.

 

[1st Course]

It's ridiculous for people to compare online passes to the X1 rumored DRM.

Online passes:
-Restrict customer access to online play only.
-Cost $10 only.

Rumored X1 DRM system:
-Have to connect to the internet every 24h.
-Restrict customer access to any part of the game.
-Have to pay $60 to play used.

 

[dragonbane]

It will be the same as it currently is on PS3. Online passes and publishers can do always online if they want to. However, the effort if they want to block used games completely will be on their end and not Sony's, which probably results in many publishers not bothering with it.

 

[dragonelite]

It will be the same as it currently is on PS3. Online passes and publishers can do always online if they want to. However, the effort if they want to block used games completely will be on their end and not Sony's, which probably results in many publishers not bothering with it.

If that is possible the publisher have the infrastructure already in place for it.
Look how fast online pass and day one dlc caught on.

 

[enzo_gt]

Doubt that. I always saw it as way of recouping cost on server expectations. If a game sells a million units a certain level of gamer attrition is expected and priced. If the pub finds that for one game that sold a million they are now maintaining 1.5 million accounts and the attrition is off, that cuts into their pockets.

If a pub is big enough, they may see this across many titles released over the years.

Here is the thing about online passes. It doesn't harm the seller nor the buyer of the game. It may change the valuation of the used product but as always the "service" is always separate and has it's own TOS and rules. Something the PC world is familiar with already and something the console world needs to adjust to now they are crossing over into that shared territory.

I don't agree, as I think your ultimately taxing the used games market to try and create a new revenue stream out of that. I guess helping cover server costs is one way they can use the money, and a perspective I haven't considered until now, but I see the correlation being much stronger with the used games market itself, especially when they also have PS+ as another pull to help cover those server costs, and what I'd consider their primary method. Plus servers are expensive, but not we-need-to-crush-a-market-and-create-an-entirely-new-revenue-stream-to-pay-for-them-expensive.

 

[PJV3]

The used game stuff is up to the buyer to sort out, don't buy anything from publishers that limit your ownership.

A month of that and they will crumble.

 

[Drek]

Kotaku said this last year in their initial Orbis (PS4) leak:



Perhaps it's changed since then but that sounds pretty similar to Microsoft's setup.

And multiple Sony executives have publicly said statements that make Kotaku's rumor 100% impossible.

Do you even read?

So because Sony uses online passes they're instantly going to jump from that to full on used game blocking, despite the console not actually being able to implement used game blocking based on their previous statements?

Do you even think?

I'd say online pass is a happy medium here. The complaint originally leveled against used games by publishers this generation was that they were running servers for people who never bought their game at retail and therefore never helped subsidize the cost of those servers. An online pass ensures that anyone playing an online focused game helped to subsidize the cost of that infrastructure.

Not letting someone play a used game off-line is complete different as the publisher has done their part, put out a "finished" product, and sold it for what they deemed it to be worth. Once a consumer has bought that from them they have the right to sell that media off to another person themselves, just like people have always been able to sell or trade books, movies, and other works of art.

Online passes are the equivalent of a ISP wanting you to pay for their service after you bought a second hand modem. Used games blocking is equivalent to saying that libraries are big piracy clearing houses ripping off writers everywhere.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

This is like some Chad Warden reasoning here.

 

[Satchel]

Like Microsoft, Sony will let the bad news (if any) out in interviews afterwards.

I suspect, that if there's any, it will come out much closer to launch. The only thing Sony hasn't really confirmed yet, is whether they'll charge for online. At this point, given Microsoft have basically handed them next gen, they might as well not charge and completely crush Microsoft.

 

[Ashler]

It's ridiculous for people to compare online passes to the X1 rumored DRM.

(...)

Rumored X1 DRM system:
-Have to connect to the internet every 24h.
-Restrict customer access to any part of the game.
-Have to pay $60 to play used.

Where is this rumour from? That would be seriously depressing.

 

[encephalon]

We can probably breathe easy about always online. We have reason to be concerned about used games. Even if it's "left up to publishers." This isn't like region locking where most publishers may not even care. Publishers seem to think that they're entitled to profits from 2nd hand sales.

The used game stuff is up to the buyer to sort out, don't buy anything from publishers that limit your ownership.

A month of that and they will crumble.

How many people have that kind of patience or care enough to withhold sale to make a statement? It's hard to imagine that any angry resistance from gamers will make a dent.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

It looks like Microsoft decided to put out all the bad news ahead of E3 to make that event all about the things that ultimately sell or don't sell a console: exclusives. Does anybody expect Sony not to do exactly what Microsoft does with used games and such? PC does it since at least five years and it actually became successful again thanks to the old consoles. The writing has long been on the wall, publishers don't want used games. If one console basically blocks used games and unblocks them for a fee, if PC totally blocks used games both physically and digitally, do we actually expect Sony (who invented the PSP Go) to not do it? EA drops online passes. If Sony would go a different route they'd have kept them at least for their platform. So at this point it's safe to assume that all platforms from the end of the year on will work just like Steam. Sony has some explaining to do at E3, it could cost them all the momentum they currently have.

Things look bad now for X1 but it could all change when the games and the price are more interesting that the same for PS4. I think we have to adapt to the no used fully digital present, it's been long coming. Game prices might be much more flexible on the new systems, I can see games selling for $60 in the first month and then dropping $10 every other month. I still don't get however why Microsoft doesn't just offer a fully digital SKU - considering their strategy. Then again the box already looks like two boxes put together. Maybe one day we'll only get the right side of it.

I'm sure Sony will make you feel better about (Fireball) XB1 and go back on everything they've said, especially now that they've seen everybody respond to MS so positively.

Hang tight kitten, it will all be over soon!

 

[CaptainTiptop]

Used game blocking would really hurt the PS4 with the Japanese market. I could see it being a publisher-based decision, but not built on the OS level.

I expect Sony first-party games to just stick to the 'network pass' thing, and also for Sony to heavily push digital.

 

[1st Course]

Where is this rumour from? That would be seriously depressing.

From their EU VP:

Per Harrison: “The bits that are on that disc, you can give it to your friend and they can install it on an Xbox One…they would then have to purchase the right to play that game through Xbox Live…it will be the same price [you paid for the game].”

http://www.gamefront.com/used-games-on-xbox-one-may-incur-online-pass-fee/

 

[mysteriousmage09]

Kotaku said this last year in their initial Orbis (PS4) leak:



Perhaps it's changed since then but that sounds pretty similar to Microsoft's setup.

From that article, made me laugh.

The Pastebin post also mentions that big name developers like EA were disappointed by an Orbis much less powerful than Microsoft's next machine, so there's a chance that it's the story of an earlier prototype that didn't make the grade. We've reached out to EA for comment.

Boy, how the tables have turned.

 

[Steroyd]

I think publisher will force sony to implement the same system like they did with microsoft.
There is a big difference between can play and will play on multiple systems.

Highly doubt publishers would force Sony to do that, however I do think that at worse Sony will provide a swtch that the publishers have to press themselves to block used games on the system.

 

[bunbun777]

If, and to me it is a big IF, Sony does the same thing that MS does then I am out. But if Sony reveals their plans with no DRM, no used game restrictions, and no monthly paywall for online access, then what the hell will be the determining factor in people choosing Xbox over Ps4? All of the sudden we have another Wii type situation where a certain core prefers their games and graphics just do not matter as much anymore, the casual market hopefully picks up the slack and propels the profits. Multi-console users who can afford both will get multiplat games on Ps4 unless for whatever reason all their friends are already on the Xbox. Since there is not a big price or release date discrepancy this time (probably), no missing social features (cross game chat, ease of online use) and backwards compatibility features there will be no reason for that, it will depend more on brand loyalty. Which did not seem to be enough for Sony when they lost all that market share to MS in the first place.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Papercuts]

Highly doubt publishers would force Sony to do that, however I do think that at worse Sony will provide a swtch that the publishers have to press themselves to block used games on the system.

There's very little reason for publishers to not do it when they already are on xbox.

 

[Castef]

If you think Sony's going to do what MS did on used games you haven't been paying attention.

About this... is there an official source from Sony saying that PS4 will play used games "free of charge"?

 

[staticneuron]

I don't agree, as I think your ultimately taxing the used games market to try and create a new revenue stream out of that. I guess helping cover server costs is one way they can use the money, and a perspective I haven't considered until now, but I see the correlation being much stronger with the used games market itself, especially when they also have PS+ as another pull to help cover those server costs, and what I'd consider their primary method. Plus servers are expensive, but not we-need-to-crush-a-market-and-create-an-entirely-new-revenue-stream-to-pay-for-them-expensive.

Introducing online passes did not crush the second hand market.

Server costs are the "only" logical reason. Keep in mind, these companies still do things for profit.

Don't forget. They CAN be outrageous jerks and charge for thinks that would make your head catch on fire. As long as they state clearly what the product you are purchasing includes clearly on the package, they will be legally protected. Consumer expectation is not a justifiable reason to ignore what was plainly stated and marketed.

So... the ability to block used games. They can do that now. They could require keys for the entire experience. They could require online connection for checks for games.

None of these companies have to wait till next gen to do so, they can do so on current gen consoles. Obviously the only reason they don't is because they fear the backlash. They fear gamestop and losing the revenue it brings in. So Sony's method of allowing pubs to choose is a wise one because they will be able to compare and contrast if one chooses to do it while the others don't.

So for now, they play the long game. Adaption rates for Digital Downloads are growing. obviously you cant sell those. I think they will reach a happy medium between selling DLC and selling online passes, to at least see a little profit from second hand community instead of feeling the need to kill it completely.

About this... is there an official source from Sony saying that PS4 will play used games "free of charge"?

At the top of these thread there are many links to their response. Sony themselves will not implement such a system but leave it up to pubs to that if they want. As I mentioned above pubs can do it now on current gen tech if they wanted to. I doubt any of them will take the risk.

 

[Awntawn]

Dude, what's going on with this mentality? MS is doing it so Sony has to in order to stay competitive? Competitive with what? I swear, this is how they get you. They make you think they do this stuff because they have to, not because they're making a greedy money grab.

It's the same thing with paying for Live. All of a sudden people think it's a necessity, that MS is doing this stuff because they have to or they won't make any profit and their entire foray in the industry is pointless charity work.

 

[Zephyrus]

I find it extremely funny how some people are grasping at straws and hope that sony does something equally as bad as MS did in order to justify their purchase.


I know there's this insane bias toward the xbox on USA but damn...

Some people even flatout refuse to buy the ps4.

 

[Evolution_1ne]

I read the OP twice and still fail to see the point.

Is this another "lets try and shift some negativity on Sony for some theoretical reason" thread?

Yup they've been doing it since the reveal, its the bargaining phase of grief, ala its ok if MS does it as long as Sony does it too, its completely baseless and unfounded. Best to ignore because it changes nothing in the end