Support NeoGAF

[jaypah]

Am I right in thinking the anti-sharers are all lining up behind the Activision price hike? Because, you know, devs need money. They have stated reasons for increasing the price and I'm assuming that they know best. Should game prices go up further?

i think sharing is fucked but since it's allowed i don't see why people wouldn't take advantage. consumers are always looking for breaks, bargains and loopholes and this is no different to me. but i don't see the connection you make between Acitvision wanting more money than normal retail price and a dev wanting the full price that their product was intended to be sold for.

to clarify, SELLING account details should result in that PSN account being utterly banned. I am talking about sharing, with friends. Like you do with full retail titles when you lend them the disc.

but if you have my retail disc how can i play it?

 

[depward]

Gamesharing is bullshit. I have no idea why Sony allows users to do this.

 

[SmokyDave]

but if you have my retail disc how can i play it?

But if you played Warhawk 2 hours ago, how can I play it?

The facility is there if devs choose to use it.

 

[jorma]

Just to clarify, SELLING account details should result in that PSN account being utterly banned. I am talking about sharing, with friends. Like you do with full retail titles when you lend them the disc.

Whaaaaaaaaaat? You are no better than a pirate! Burn him with fire!

 

[dojokun]

There is so much misinformation floating around based SOLELY on a 2006 pre-launch Jack Tretton quote. How about we look at the actual Terms of Service?

http://www.us.playstation.com/Support/TermsOfUse

Here are two paragraphs from the Terms of Service that are related to the current discussion in this thread:



All user agreements have language similar to this so there's nothing special here other than the fact that the Terms of Service specifically states that users should safeguard their information to prevent use by any other user. But you HAVE to share information to game share.



We're getting closer...



There it is in black and white on Playstation.com. The content is licensed to you, your children, and any children for whom you are a legal guardian for your personal, private, NON-TRANSFERABLE, non-commercial, limited use on a limited number of systems.

Like I said on the very first page in this thread, game sharing with friends is NOT what the 5 activations were designed for and people are essentially exploiting a loophole in the DRM to get cheaper games.

1) The intentions of game sharing are not like features in a video game. They don't change overnight because some devs told their bosses it couldn't be done in time. If it was a video game feature being talked about, I'd agree that a 3-year old quote is obsolete. But when it comes to whether or not gamesharing is purposely allowed by Sony, the fact that it is a 2006 pre-launch quote doesn't matter. Those things don't change overnight.

2) Transferring and gamesharing are not the same thing. Transferring means the original owner no longer has it and the new one has it completely to himself. Gamesharing is when they both have it.

3) You do not have to share your personal login information to gameshare. You can go to your friend's house and login on his PS3 and do it all for him without giving him any information. Just delete your info from his system before you leave.

4) Please tell me why your interpretation of the TOS is more reliable than the word coming straight from a top Sony exec. Again, don't bother with the "it's an old quote" argument. It's an old quote to say that 1 + 1 = 2, that doesn't mean it has changed. If Sony changed their mind, they would have: 1) said so at least in another interview and 2) taken away the ability. They have done neither of those.

 

[jaypah]

But if you played Warhawk 2 hours ago, how can I play it?

The facility is there if devs choose to use it.

what? i'm just saying that sharing isn't the same when 2 people can use a game at the same time while that's not true of physical media. for the record i think that devs should use the stop if they don't want their games being shared. again, i don't see what one has to do with the other. kinda just bounced around the topic there.

also i believe there was a quote on the previous page about a dev saying that if the didn't implement the sharing feature there would be backlash.

 

[Dambrosi]

Would you please define "undue profits" for me?

"Undue" as in "money you didn't work to earn, or are illicitly earning off someone else's hard work". Y'know, like piracy. Which game-sharing isn't.

Also, I find it hard for you to be so willfully dense that you can't see the difference in making a $5 profit or getting a $5 game. THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME THING. It doesn't matter if you get $5 in cash or $5 in content/services/whatever, you're still getting your $5.

I...don't think we're arguing about the same thing here. Could you clarify further, please?

 

[SmokyDave]

what? i'm just saying that sharing isn't the same when 2 people can use a game at the same time while that's not true of physical media. for the record i think that devs should use the stop if they don't want their games being shared. again, i don't see what one has to do with the other. kinda just bounced around the topic there.

Sorry, what I meant by that is that Warhawk (and some others) have a lockout period where account B cannot access the game if account A has used it in the last 24 hours. This removes the whole "Two people playing the same game at the same time" thing. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[jaypah]

Sorry, what I meant by that is that Warhawk (and some others) have a lockout period where account B cannot access the game if account A has used it in the last 24 hours. This removes the whole "Two people playing the same game at the same time" thing. Sorry for the confusion.

no apology needed but yeah, i addressed that already. if there's a route that can be taken to prevent game sharing then it's on the devs to use it. but as i pointed out there's at least one dev that seemed afraid of the backlash that it would create. it's only one example but for other devs that feel that way (and for games that have been released without the preventative measure) the analogy of game sharing and lending a retail disc breaks down a little.

again, i do feel like it's in the hands of the devs to implement the 24hr lock-out. they shouldn't leave it up to "good will" on the part of the consumer because at the end of the day we're just consumers. we'll almost always take the cheapest route.

 

[dammitmattt]

1) The intentions of game sharing are not like features in a video game. They don't change overnight because some devs told their bosses it couldn't be done in time. If it was a video game feature being talked about, I'd agree that a 3-year old quote is obsolete. But when it comes to whether or not gamesharing is purposely allowed by Sony, the fact that it is a 2006 pre-launch quote doesn't matter. Those things don't change overnight.

2) Transferring and gamesharing are not the same thing. Transferring means the original owner no longer has it and the new one has it completely to himself. Gamesharing is when they both have it.

3) You do not have to share your personal login information to gameshare. You can go to your friend's house and login on his PS3 and do it all for him without giving him any information. Just delete your info from his system before you leave.

4) Please tell me why your interpretation of the TOS is more reliable than the word coming straight from a top Sony exec. Again, don't bother with the "it's an old quote" argument. It's an old quote to say that 1 + 1 = 2, that doesn't mean it has changed. If Sony changed their mind, they would have: 1) said so at least in another interview and 2) taken away the ability. They have done neither of those.

You are completely ignoring this part:

Except as stated in this Agreement, all content and software provided through PSN are licensed non-exclusively and revocably to you, your children and children for whom you are a legal guardian (collectively for purposes of this section, “You” or “Your”), solely for Your personal, private, non-transferable, non-commercial, limited use on a limited number of activated PLAYSTATION®3 computer entertainment systems, PSP® (PlayStation®Portable) systems, and any other hardware devices authorized by SCEA in the United States or Canada (where permitted).

I have a feeling that most people sharing games on GAF aren't sharing them with their legal dependents

"Undue" as in "money you didn't work to earn, or are illicitly earning off someone else's hard work". Y'know, like piracy. Which game-sharing isn't.

I...don't think we're arguing about the same thing here. Could you clarify further, please?

You really don't get it. I think it's an incredibly simple concept. If you just share a game with someone, you're benevolent. If you trade a game share with someone, then it's exactly the same as selling a game share. The only difference is that you're getting a game as your payment instead of money. Do you get it?

 

[dojokun]

You are completely ignoring this part:

I'm not ignoring it. I straight up told you that your interpretation OF it may not be correct. You are assuming that gamesharing is the same as transferring.

It is not.

Gamesharing is using the 5 licenses you bought and letting other people have some of those 5, the way a top Sony exec SPECIFIED that you can. Transferring would be trying to let someone else have all 5 licenses, meaning you no longer have any licenses.

You need to take a step back and look at the big picture. Jack Tretton is a top Sony exec. You're a guy on the internet doing web searches for a TOS to find technicalities. Why should anyone think you have a better idea than Jack Tretton on what Sony is okay with?

 

[LosDaddie]

I think the content which is there is already solid on it's own. I have both and can get all the content I want but if I just had a PS3, I would feel more than content as it's games on the network are better to me. These marketplaces are so strong that it's really hard to pick a winner but I've invested on PSN and have a bounty of games to play. XBLA is really strong as well and has a nice collection of fighters and more old school games at the moment.

I do think that this ultimately leads to more people buying the game than not as if you can share with family across the country you would be more inclined to invest in space bucks.

I see the other side wanting more revenues for devs but it's kind of a give and take.

I think XBLA and PSN are equal, but I've spent far more on XBLA games than PSN games.

I don't agree that gamesharing leads to more sales though. Some obscure games I can such being true, but not for popular games like SFII HD Remix, MKII, Stardust HD, Flower....and definitely not true for DLC.

As a consumer, I believe gamesharing is awesome and I applaud Sony for being a bit liberal with their PSN licensing. But I'd be shocked if this feature is in the PS4.

 

[tzare]

tarifa plana para usar en 5 PS3, translate it and you're done

 

[Dambrosi]

You really don't get it. I think it's an incredibly simple concept. If you just share a game with someone, you're benevolent. If you trade a game share with someone, then it's exactly the same as selling a game share. The only difference is that you're getting a game as your payment instead of money. Do you get it?

So, wait a minute. Are you talking about me buying a game on PSN and sharing it with my friend, then him buying the next game on PSN and sharing it with me in return? Something I and my friend have been doing for years now?

Or are you talking about things like the InFAMOUS demo sharing thread here on GAF, where kind posters shared the elusive (then HK PSN only) demo with other members for free? Probably not, since that doesn't seem objectionable in the least.

And I agree with you that selling game activations is wrong and should be punished, but at the same time cannot fault someone for taking an activation that's been offered for free, or even for part-payment towards the cost of the game. That's what MartyChinn and his circle do, isn't it? Is that what you're objecting to?

 

[jsnepo]

Be careful guys with game sharing especially with accounts with questionable means of purchasing games (fraud, etc). This might happen to your PS3.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Its not awesome when GAF members scam you.

How can you be scammed?

 

[dammitmattt]

I'm not ignoring it. I straight up told you that your interpretation OF it may not be correct. You are assuming that gamesharing is the same as transferring.

It is not.

Gamesharing is using the 5 licenses you bought and letting other people have some of those 5, the way a top Sony exec SPECIFIED that you can. Transferring would be trying to let someone else have all 5 licenses, meaning you no longer have any licenses.

You need to take a step back and look at the big picture. Jack Tretton is a top Sony exec. You're a guy on the internet doing web searches for a TOS to find technicalities. Why should anyone think you have a better idea than Jack Tretton on what Sony is okay with?

The part that I quoted said absolutely nothing to do with transferring rights. You are picking out one specific word to disagree with while ignoring the rest of the paragraph.

This isn't about what Jack Tretton said. This is about what the ToS says and whether or not this is a loophole that people are taking advantage of. I say that it is. The ToS back me up. Jack Tretton's comment is at odds with the ToS, but backs up what you think. There's not much more for us to debate.

So, wait a minute. Are you talking about me buying a game on PSN and sharing it with my friend, then him buying the next game on PSN and sharing it with me in return? Something I and my friend have been doing for years now?

Or are you talking about things like the InFAMOUS demo sharing thread here on GAF, where kind posters shared the elusive (then HK PSN only) demo with other members for free? Probably not, since that doesn't seem objectionable in the least.

And I agree with you that selling game activations is wrong and should be punished, but at the same time cannot fault someone for taking an activation that's been offered for free, or even for part-payment towards the cost of the game. That's what MartyChinn and his circle do, isn't it? Is that what you're objecting to?

I'm not objecting to anything. I'm just poking at the massive holes in your logic and your way of thinking. And in your example, you and your friend are constantly paying each other for your game shares, which is exactly the same as selling them to a random stranger. The only difference is that you take turns sharing a game instead of selling them to random people for money. Either way, you are both benefiting in exactly the same way.

Marty and everyone else can continue to take advantage of the system as long as it exists. That's completely within their rights as consumers. They're probably breaking the Terms of Service, but at the end of the day, if Sony allows it, then so be it.

Remember, my argument isn't whether this is wrong or right. It's about the intent of the DRM system and whether or not it's a loophole.

 

[dojokun]

The part that I quoted said absolutely nothing to do with transferring rights. You are picking out one specific word to disagree with while ignoring the rest of the paragraph.

This isn't about what Jack Tretton said. This is about what the ToS says and whether or not this is a loophole that people are taking advantage of. I say that it is. The ToS back me up. Jack Tretton's comment is at odds with the ToS, but backs up what you think. There's not much more for us to debate.

Again, you're relying on technicalities in a TOS. If they are at odds, who do you think wins, the TOS of a company or a top executive of the same company? If you answer this incorrectly I will know you have never had a job in your life.

 

[Lion Heart]

I highly doubt devs would be scared of game sharing. That would be like saying they dont want to put games on 360 cause you can easily mod your xbox and burn full retail games...

The percentage of people sharing with 4 others is probably less than 1% of users. You would have to be dense to risk losing your account if your ps3 breaks. I only do with with one of my friends and it makes blind purchases that much easier. Hell ya we buy more games now. This guy has never bought anything off PSN but now he buys those disposable credit cards and I recommend games, or if he sees something interesting he'll tell me about it.

 

[brain_stew]

Definitely one of the most awesome things to come out of this generation. In our group, we've bought $620 worth of content and I've only spent $160. I guarentee that without sharing, between the 5 of us, the total amount spent would probably be well under $620, so I'll argue that at least from us, developers benefit not lose out.

Sounds great until one of you has a broken PS3 on their hands.

I've always thought that its original purpose was to help alleviate concerns for people who're afraid their downloads would get lost if their PS3 breaks down since paid content are not tied down to a specific hardware...DRM install limit, if you will....

That's precisely what it is. 5 Activations really isn't all that many in the grand scheme of things. Its much more restrictive than Steam's offline mode for instance.

Its a fair compromise for consoles but the idiots exploiting the system will either end up with no content if their machine breaks down or force Sony to make their DRM more restrictive so that we all suffer.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

IIRC I only used game sharing to download the LBP beta. I have not game shared a paid game with anyone.

I don't have many gamer friends. The one's that do have 360's. So, me and my friends can't split the cost for multiple games.

When I go look at the game sharing thread for me and some other people it becomes game trading.

i.e "you paid for this game I paid for that game, let's trade!"

That does not promote sells.

 

[vehn]

Sounds great until one of you has a broken PS3 on their hands.

couldn't they just get Sony to deactivate that PS3 and then re-d/l all the games on the new ps3 they get?

 

[Miburou]

How can you be scammed?

I shared my HK account with two guys who PMed me from this forum. Not only did they never share anything back (nor reply to my subsequent PMs), but they went and maxed out my remaining activations. The account only had one game (Tekken 5), and now I only share with my brothers and close friends (and one guy from here who's been a great sharer).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, I like how people here choose to ignore any posts that don't go along with their theories. People here are repeatedly mentioning the "24 hour lockout" thing when it only applies to online games (the PS3 does not need to be connected to the net for you to play PSN games). And how come Warhawk has this lockout when it's a Sony game and Sony is supposedly OK with people sharing? Before that you needed to have the password of the shared account saved on your machine to launch the game, but I guess that didn't stop people.

I'm totally OK with sharing. Not only have I bought all the games I liked (rather than wait for someone who is sharing his account with me to buy it), but it also meant that I was able to get two of my friends to play Siren, which they wouldn't have bought otherwise. But that doesn't mean that I have to believe that Sony really wants us to share, and that when we share we are absolutely not exploiting the system.

And for those who constantly ask why is Sony allowing this, it's the same reason iTunes sells DRM-free music and PC games can be installed on multiple machines (and games like The Witcher have official patches that remove the need for the disc to be in the computer to play the game). Not so that you can go ahead and spread the wealth, but because people don't like to be restricted.

 

[BeEatNU]

It's whatever to be honest. I rather not give up my 5 activations to someone, cause if some shit happens to my ps3 and I get a replacement, I won't be able to activate and having sony deactivate systems is a pain in the ass.

 

[brain_stew]

couldn't they just get Sony to deactivate that PS3 and then re-d/l all the games on the new ps3 they get?

They could try but you've no guarantees they'll fulfill your wish and nor should they they've fulfilled their contract by giving you 5 activations of the game. For all Sony know your console is offline and working fine, and then they've got 6 people sharing the content. My PS3 was stolen, aint no way for me to deactivate that console now, which makes me pleased that I didn't bother with Game sharing as others would have access to content I'd paid for, yet I myself would not.

 

[Miburou]

IIRC I only used game sharing to download the LBP beta. I have not game shared a paid game with anyone.

I don't have many gamer friends. The one's that do have 360's. So, me and my friends can't split the cost for multiple games.

When I go look at the game sharing thread for me and some other people it becomes game trading.

i.e "you paid for this game I paid for that game, let's trade!"

That does not promote sells.

EA choose not to have the 24-hour lockout on Battlefield 1943, while Sony did with Warhawk. Either EA didn't know about that feature or it just "slipped their mind" (unlikely), or they do believe that giving people this freedom can actually result in higher sales (5 people sharing a game is still better than no sale).

 

[agaru]

I've used PSN game sharing only once and that's about it. However, I don't understand the bitching here about this feature. If you don't use it and know that Sony is allowing it intentionally, then why complain? Let others enjoy it.

Seriously:

I can't believe there are people complaining about this. It's just another form of "lending" the game to your friend - something we've been doing since the Atari days. Grow the fuck up.

Wah wah, I hate this feature that benefits consumers! This industry is all about raping gamers, why does Sony treat us with this awesome feature?! I must bitch about it on the internet.

.

 

[LM4sure]

wow.

Instead of getting a PS3, you probably got a Funstation 3, right? Why spend 400 when you can get FS3 for 20 bucks!!!

Trust me, I make a lot of money, but I'm not OVERpaying. I pay what it is worth. Period.

 

[Classic_Gs]

I'd prefer demos for PSN games to be mandatory, honestly.

This. No try, no buy.

 

[djtortilla]

wow

only Fanboys would argue more DRM is better.

"My system is better because the DRM is more restrictive!" :lol

 

[Miburou]

I've used PSN game sharing only once and that's about it. However, I don't understand the bitching here about this feature. If you don't use it and know that Sony is allowing it intentionally, then why complain? Let others enjoy it.
.

Because some people like to play the part of the moral police. You'll also find them bitching about those who rent games, buy them used, or believe it or not, buy them when they hit the bargain bin.

 

[SmokyDave]

I'd be interested to see the results of a survey that compared the buying habits of sharers and non-sharers. Although I'm sure there are leeches that abuse the system, I'm also sure there are close groups of friends that buy large amounts of PSN software because they can share them. I know that's the case in my group, multi-platform downloads are PSN every time, it's a no-brainer.

 

[JudgeN]

Its funny people are really taking Jack Tretton seriously? I mean really? :lol :lol

Or did we forget this is the man who knew the E3 2005 Killzone 2 trailer was CG and he said it was real time.

Or what about his famous "If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1200 bucks for it." during launch when PS3 were just sitting thier $600 asses on shelves? This man should been fired a long time ago, he always speaking bullshit.

But karma will catch up to the game sharing people or they going to mess it up for everyone and we will get shitty DRM next time around.

 

[DDayton]

If the intended purpose of the 5 system license scheme was to allow "game sharing", wouldn't it have made far more sense to allow you to SEND a "license" to a friend via PSN, rather than requiring you to log on to your account on their system?

(Does Sony not have a Gifting option on their store?)

 

[Cruzader]

EA choose not to have the 24-hour lockout on Battlefield 1943, while Sony did with Warhawk. Either EA didn't know about that feature or it just "slipped their mind" (unlikely), or they do believe that giving people this freedom can actually result in higher sales (5 people sharing a game is still better than no sale).

BF1943 is a $15 game. Warhawk/Socom/GT5P are full retail games on PSN thus putting that limit on them. Sony is not retarded to let users share a $40 game. Use your head. No such thing as EA forgetting to put a limit on their game.

 

[Dambrosi]

Again, you're relying on technicalities in a TOS. If they are at odds, who do you think wins, the TOS of a company or a top executive of the same company? If you answer this incorrectly I will know you have never had a job in your life.

Well, he can't answer you anymore, so it's a bit unfair to say that

Seriously, why was he banned? He may have been completely wrong-headed in his assumptions and values system, but the last I heard, that wasn't a bannable offence, was it?

If the intended purpose of the 5 system license scheme was to allow "game sharing", wouldn't it have made far more sense to allow you to SEND a "license" to a friend via PSN, rather than requiring you to log on to your account on their system?

(Does Sony not have a Gifting option on their store?)

My only thought on this is that they want to facilitate game-sharing, but also not facilitate it; that is, they want to keep it on the down-low.

And, as far as I know, there is no Gifting system on PSN. I'd love one, though.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

I shared my HK account with two guys who PMed me from this forum. Not only did they never share anything back (nor reply to my subsequent PMs), but they went and maxed out my remaining activations. The account only had one game (Tekken 5), and now I only share with my brothers and close friends (and one guy from here who's been a great sharer).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, I like how people here choose to ignore any posts that don't go along with their theories. People here are repeatedly mentioning the "24 hour lockout" thing when it only applies to online games (the PS3 does not need to be connected to the net for you to play PSN games). And how come Warhawk has this lockout when it's a Sony game and Sony is supposedly OK with people sharing? Before that you needed to have the password of the shared account saved on your machine to launch the game, but I guess that didn't stop people.

I'm totally OK with sharing. Not only have I bought all the games I liked (rather than wait for someone who is sharing his account with me to buy it), but it also meant that I was able to get two of my friends to play Siren, which they wouldn't have bought otherwise. But that doesn't mean that I have to believe that Sony really wants us to share, and that when we share we are absolutely not exploiting the system.

And for those who constantly ask why is Sony allowing this, it's the same reason iTunes sells DRM-free music and PC games can be installed on multiple machines (and games like The Witcher have official patches that remove the need for the disc to be in the computer to play the game). Not so that you can go ahead and spread the wealth, but because people don't like to be restricted.

Wow that sucks. But just to be clear, you need the correct password of the account on your PS3 at all times? Does this mean if I share with someone and change my password then send the info, this person forever has my password and I can never change it? I thought it was a temporary change and once I knew he got the game I would change my password back to something else and vice versa with their password. Is this not the case?

Ok nvm just read up a bit on it. So it is a one time thing. That's cool, I was getting the impression once you share something, the other guy has a permanent link into your download history :lol

 

[dojokun]

Well, he can't answer you anymore, so it's a bit unfair to say that

Seriously, why was he banned? He may have been completely wrong-headed in his assumptions and values system, but the last I heard, that wasn't a bannable offence, was it?

Damn, I never noticed he was banned. But yeah, whatever it was, it couldn't have been anything he said in this thread.

 

[Owzers]

If the intended purpose of the 5 system license scheme was to allow "game sharing", wouldn't it have made far more sense to allow you to SEND a "license" to a friend via PSN, rather than requiring you to log on to your account on their system?

(Does Sony not have a Gifting option on their store?)

which is again, my major complaint about the whole game sharing thing. If people say Sony is fine with game sharing, it would be nice if Sony would actually make it easier to do. The " it's okay, but we're going to make it a hassle for you to do it" doesn't make any sense.

 

[Marty Chinn]

which is again, my major complaint about the whole game sharing thing. If people say Sony is fine with game sharing, it would be nice if Sony would actually make it easier to do. The " it's okay, but we're going to make it a hassle for you to do it" doesn't make any sense.

The thing is, it's not 5 shares per title. It's 5 shares per account. So having a gifting license per title thing would get confusing if you had a limit per account and not per title. I don't think there's an easy way to implement that without being confusing to the mass consumer. Best to leave it as is.

 

[LiquidJin]

When you buy PSN games you buy one of the following

- a license to execute 5 copies of said game on at most 5 different machines at a time that this account is also on.

- a license to execute 1 copy of said game on at most 1 machine every 24 hours that this account is also on.


In either case, you are always the license holder. When you share your game with someone you are still the license holder. There is no loophole! You have to keep your account on that machine or else none of the other accounts can execute the game.

Did you guys ever use Warcraft II's or Starcraft's spawn copy system? It's essentially the same shit. A small percentage of people abused that too with Kali but they went on to have one of the most loyal and lucrative fan bases because of the ability to share/spread the word.

Obviously, they don't use this anymore, but they also don't need to. They're marketing budget is ridiculous now.

Little Devs take note.
Big devs just use 24 hour protection if you're scared.
PS3 users get social and share with people you know in real life. PS3 golddiggers better be stacked with a kick ass library or a PS Eye, a smokin bod, and a propensity to dance naked for the camera.

 

[H_Prestige]

Wah wah, I hate this feature that benefits consumers! This industry is all about raping gamers, why does Sony treat us with this awesome feature?! I must bitch about it on the internet.

.

 

[Sysgen]

When you buy PSN games you buy one of the following

- a license to execute 5 copies of said game on at most 5 different machines at a time that this account is also on.

- a license to execute 1 copy of said game on at most 1 machine every 24 hours that this account is also on.


In either case, you are always the license holder. When you share your game with someone you are still the license holder. There is no loophole! You have to keep your account on that machine or else none of the other accounts can execute the game.

Did you guys ever use Warcraft II's or Starcraft's spawn copy system? It's essentially the same shit. A small percentage of people abused that too with Kali but they went on to have one of the most loyal and lucrative fan bases because of the ability to share/spread the word.

Obviously, they don't use this anymore, but they also don't need to. They're marketing budget is ridiculous now.

Little Devs take note.
Big devs just use 24 hour protection if you're scared.
PS3 users get social and share with people you know in real life. PS3 golddiggers better be stacked with a kick ass library or a PS Eye, a smokin bod, and a propensity to dance naked for the camera.

Not that I've looked but what does the PSN TOS say about giving your account information to someone else?

 

[Sysgen]

When you buy PSN games you buy one of the following

- a license to execute 5 copies of said game on at most 5 different machines at a time that this account is also on.

- a license to execute 1 copy of said game on at most 1 machine every 24 hours that this account is also on.

...

Not that I've looked but what does the PSN TOS say about giving your account information to someone else?

PSN TOS states:

You may not sell, buy, trade, or otherwise transfer your Online ID or any personal access to PSN through any means or method, including by use of web auction sites.

Content or services are not refundable or transferable, and cannot be redeemed for cash, credit, or funds to your wallet. SCEA reserves the right to deduct from the wallet any amount resulting from a Master Account holder’s request to the Master Account holder’s credit card company to reverse charges for a purchase on the PSN.

Except as otherwise expressly permitted by SCEA in writing, you may not reproduce or transfer any portion of the Property.

-----

What's the difference between PSN "game sharing" and buying dlc on the PC, then torrenting the content to 4 other people?

 

[Lothars]

What's the difference between PSN "game sharing" and buying dlc on the PC, then torrenting the content to 4 other people?

PSN allows for it and the other torrenting is piracy.

There's nothing wrong with game sharing no matter how much you want to argue.

 

[Miburou]

BF1943 is a $15 game. Warhawk/Socom/GT5P are full retail games on PSN thus putting that limit on them. Sony is not retarded to let users share a $40 game. Use your head. No such thing as EA forgetting to put a limit on their game.

Way to miss the point entirely. Was "(unlikely)" too subtle for you to notice? (That was a rhetorical "either/or"). My point was that EA could've put a lockout like Sony did with Warhawk, but they didn't, so it's possible that they think sharing can actually help the sales of the game, not harm them.

With that out of the way, I'm not sure I understand how Sony letting you share a $40 (now $30) is retarded, but a $20 is perfectly fine. What's the logic behind that? If anything, those $40 games will make a lot (the majority) of their sales in retail, so the PSN only games are affected more by sharing.

EDIT: And FYI, Siren is also a $40 game ($45 if you don't buy the episodes all at once), and it doesn't have any kind of restriction (it's not an online game), so I guess by your logic Sony actually is retarded, eh?

 

[LiquidJin]

What's the difference between PSN "game sharing" and buying dlc on the PC, then torrenting the content to 4 other people?

Game sharing is legal and allowed by SONY and the game manufacturers. It requires the original user to have a presence on the people receiving the content's machines. It also limits the software to only being usable while the account is on their machine. In the case of torrents people have a copy with no strings attached. Plenty of strings on PSN, I can't believe I'm hearing - mostly Americans - request more strings.

The reason it is so hush hush, is because they underestimated how stupid people can be. The last thing Sony needs is some kid sharing information on the web to get 'free' PSN games, only to get sued by his parents when the scam artist maxes out their card over the PSN.

This whole debate is really annoying because you guys are arguing about people giving strangers access to their account which has nothing to do with game sharing.

Game sharing is the ability for other accounts on the same machine as your account to play a copy of the game licensed to you. It does not require you to divulge personal/account information and it does have a measure of accountability.

If you aren't physically present to put your account on the machine then you can't guarantee that someone won't change your password and lock you out - i.e. steal all your games and your identity.